1 Integrated microfossil biostratigraphy, facies distribution and depositional sequences of the
2 upper Turonian to Campanian succession in northeast Egypt and Jordan
3 Sherif Farouk*, Fayez Ahmad, John H. Powell, Akmal M. Marzouk 4
5 Sherif Farouk*
6 Exploration Department, Egyptian Petroleum Research Institute, Nasr City, 11727, Egypt
7 e-mail: [email protected]
8 Fayez Ahmad
9 Earth and Environmental sciences Department, Hashemite University, Jordan
10 John H. Powell
11 British Geological Survey, Nottingham, UK
12 Akmal M. Marzouk
13 Geology Department, Faculty of Science, Tanta University, Egypt
14
15 Abstract Six upper Turonian to Campanian sections in Egypt (Sinai) and Jordan were
16 studied for their microfossil biostratigraphy (calcareous nannofossils and planktonic
17 foraminifera), facies distribution and sequence stratigraphic frameworks. Carbonate (mostly
18 chalk) and chert lithofacies dominate the basinward northern sections passing laterally and
19 vertically to mixed carbonate/siliciclastic lithofacies towards the shoreline in the southeast.
20 Twenty-six lithofacies types have been identified and grouped into six lithofacies associations:
21 littoral siliciclastic facies belt; peritidal carbonate; intertidal carbonate platform/ramp; high-
22 energy ooidal shoals and shelly biostromes; shallow subtidal; and pelagic facies association. The
23 following calcareous nannofossil biozones were recognized: Luianorhabdus malefomis (CC12)
24 (late Turonian), Micula staurophora (CC14) (early Coniacian), Reinhardtites anthophorus
25 ( CC15) (late Coniacian), Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii (CC16) (early Santonian) and Broinsonia
1
1 parca parca (CC18) (Campanian). Equivalent planktonic foraminifera zones recognized are:
2 Dicarinella concavata (Coniacian), the lower most part of D. asymetrica (earliest Santonian) and
3 Globotruncanita elevata (early Campanian). The integrated zonation presented here is
4 considered to provide higher resolution than the use of either group alone. The absence of
5 calcareous nannofossil biozones CC13 and CC17 in most of the studied sections, associated with
6 regional vertical lithofacies changes, indicates that recognition of the Turonian/Coniacian and
7 Santonian/Campanian stage boundary intervals in the region have been hampered by
8 depositional hiatuses at major sequence boundaries resulting in incomplete sections. These
9 disconformities are attributed to eustatic sea-level fluctuations and regional tectonics resulting
10 from flexuring of the Syrian Arc fold belt. The Coniacian to Santonian succession can be divided
11 into three third-order depositional sequences which are bounded by four widely recognized
12 sequence boundaries.
13 Keywords: Planktonic biostratigraphy, late Turonian, Coniacian, Santonian, Campanian, 14 sequence stratigraphy, Arabian platform, Jordan, Egypt. 15
16 Introduction
17 Upper Cretaceous successions are widely distributed and well-exposed in north Egypt (Sinai)
18 Jordan, Israel and the Levant, an area that formed the northeastern part of the Arabian Platform.
19 These successions are characterized by marked lateral and vertical changes in lithofacies
20 resulting from the interplay of eustatic sea-level fluctuations and the influence of regional intra-
21 plate tectonics (Krenkel 1924; Reiss et al. 1985; Gvirtzman et al. 1985; Powell 1989; Lüning et
22 al. 1998a-b; Soudry et al. 2006). Biostratigraphical analyses of the Turonian/Coniacian,
23 Coniacian/Santonian and Santonian/Campanian stage boundary successions in the region have
2
1 been hampered by periods of depositional hiatus resulting in incomplete sections and/or
2 hardgrounds (e.g. Lewy 1990; Gruszczynski et al. 2002; Powell and Moh’d 2012; Farouk and
3 Faris 2012; Meilijson 2014).
4 Numerous studies have been published on the facies analysis and reconstruction of
5 depositional environments of the Coniacian to Campanian successions (e.g. Koch 1968; Lewy
6 1990; Almogi-Labin et al. 1993; Kuss 1986; Powell 1988, 1989; Cherif and Ismail 1991; Kora
7 and Genedi 1995; Lüning et al. 1998a-b; Moh’d 2000; Mustafa 2000; Mustafa et al. 2002; Kuss
8 et al. 2000; Bauer et al. 2002, 2003; Abdel-Gawad et al. 2004; El-Azabi and El-Araby 2007;
9 Shahin and Kora 1991; Issawi et al. 2009; Powell and Moh`d 2011, 2012; Ismail 2012; Makhlouf
10 et al. 2015 and Farouk 2015). The precise correlation of the upper Turonian to Campanian
11 successions in Egypt, Jordan and Israel on a regional scale, based upon integrated litho- and
12 biostratigraphy, and the distribution of lithofacies tracts has, to date, been uncertain.
13 Furthermore, comparison and correlation of the sequences in this region to global (eustatic) sea-
14 level events (Haq, 2014) is controversial as a result of regional (eurybatic) fluctuations on the
15 Arabian Platform that were influenced by Late Cretaceous tectonic deformation of the Syrian
16 Arc (Krenkel 1924; Soudry et al. 1985; Flexer et al. 1986; Shahar 1994; Lüning et al. 1998;
17 Meilijson et al. 2014).
18 Regional correlation of sequence boundaries based upon biostratigraphy provides important
19 information on relative sea-level fluctuations on the southern margin of Neo-Tethys. These data
20 help to elucidate the effect of local tectonics on the development of depositional sequences that
21 can be more widely correlated with the global cycle charts (Hardenbol et al. 1998; Stampfli and
22 Borel 2002; Haq and Al-Qahtani 2005; Haq 2014).
3
1 The aims of this paper are to: (1) determine the lithofacies characteristics and biostratigraphic
2 framework of the upper Turonian to Campanian sequences and their palaeoenvironments, (2)
3 establish a standard sequence stratigraphic scheme, and compare its depositional sequences and
4 boundaries with those previously published, (3) re-evaluate the nature, extent and hiatus of the
5 recorded sequence boundaries, (4) improve correlation with sequence boundaries recognized
6 elsewhere in North Africa, the Arabian Platform, Europe, and with global records, (5) constrain
7 better the timing of sea-level variations, and (6) reconstruct, precisely, the depositional history in
8 the region during late Turonian to Santonian time.
9 Geological setting
10 In Mesozoic times, Egypt, Jordan and Israel were situated at the southern margin of the Neo-
11 Tethys Ocean (Stampfli and Borel 2002; Ahmad et al. 2014; Meilijson et al. 2014). Many
12 dramatic lateral and vertical lithofacies changes are observed during the convergence of the
13 African-Arabian Craton (closure of Neo-Tethys) that resulted in the variable development of
14 basins and swells in the region in response to the major intra-plate tectonic pulse of the ‘Syrian
15 Arc’ fold belt (Krenkel 1924; Bowen and Jux 1987; Shahar 1994). At the end of the Turonian, a
16 phase of non-deposition or local uplift and erosion, respectively, lasted until the early Coniacian
17 (Flexer et al. 1986; Gvirtzman et al. 1989; Powell 1989; Powell and Moh’d 2011). This event is
18 attributed to tectonic (intra-plate) foundering, subsidence and tilting of the platform margin,
19 possibly linked to ophiolite obduction in northeast Arabia (Haq and Al-Qahtani 2005), and is
20 also associated with extensional rifting in the Azraq Basin (Powell and Moh’d 2011). During the
21 Coniacian a global sea-level rise (Haq 2014) resulted in marine transgression (marine flooding)
22 across the pre-existing, rimmed carbonate platform. Transgressive marine flooding was
23 characterized by chalk sedimentation with regressive events characterized by a marl-chert-
4
1 phosphorite association; these lithofacies associations passed shorewards (southeast) to shallow
2 marine carbonates/siliciclastics in Jordan and Egypt (Powell and Moh’d 2011).
3 Regional variations in the lithofacies and associated fauna and nannoflora are observed
4 during Coniacian-Santonian time, ranging from predominantly carbonate ramp lithofacies in
5 basinward settings towards the north and northwest (Wadi Umm Ghudran and Themed
6 formations), to mixed shallow-water clastic/carbonate facies (Alia and Matulla formations)
7 towards the southeast and south, depending on their relative palaeogeographic and tectonic
8 setting. The Campanian (and Maastrichtian) sea in this region was characterized by a high
9 concentration of organic material deposited in a broad, shallow-water zone locally associated
10 with oyster bioherms, which led to the accumulation of economic phosphate deposits in Jordan
11 (Powell 1989). Elevated levels of organic matter and the deposition of phosphate and organic-
12 rich carbonates (Abed et al. 2005) at discrete levels within this succession was the result of high
13 oceanic bio-productivity and upwelling of nutrients at the shelf margin (Almogi-Labin et al.
14 1993; Soudry et al. 2006; Abed et al 2007; Powell and Moh’d 2011; Meilijson et al. 2014). In
15 contrast, the observed basinal facies in north Egypt are represented by hemiplegic facies of the
16 Sudr Chalk Formation in north Eastern Desert/Sinai and the equivalent Khoman Chalk
17 Formation in the Western Desert. These hemipelagic chalk facies pass laterally to mixed
18 siliciclastic/carbonate lithofacies of the Dakhla Formation, which was deposited close to the
19 shoreline in central and southern Egypt.
20 Material and Methods
21 Lithostratigraphical, biostratigraphical and sedimentological investigations were carried out on
22 six exposed sections in north eastern Egypt and Jordan (Fig. 1); a total of 227 samples were
5
1 collected. The sections, measured and sampled bed-by-bed, are located from south to north:
2 Gebel Qabaliat (28º20’25”N; 33º31’36”E) and Gebel Nazazat (28º47’45”N; 33º13’19”E) in
3 southwestern Sinai and Ras el-Gifa section in west-central Sinai (32º34’15”N; 35º48’44”E). In
4 Jordan, sections were measured at Karak (31º02’17”N; 35º34’55”E) and Wadi Mujib
5 (31º27’13”N; 35º48’02”E) in central Jordan, and at Wadi El-Ghafar in north Jordan
6 (32º34’15”N; 35º48’44”E). The facies analysis of the Coniacian-Santonian successions is based
7 on an integrated study of litho- and bio-facies in addition to a microfacies study of 160 thin-
8 sections. The sandstones are described following the classification of Pettijohn et al. (1987),
9 while the classification scheme of Dunham (1962), with the modifications by Embry and Klovan
10 (1972), is used to describe the microfacies of the carbonate rocks. In addition, whole samples
11 were examined for their calcareous nannofossil and planktonic foraminifera taxa to provide an
12 improved biostratigraphical correlation between Egypt, Jordan, Israel and farther afield. For the
13 foraminiferal analyses, about 20 g of dry rock were soaked in hydrogen peroxide, disaggregated
14 in water, washed through a 63 μm sieve, and then dried. The most important foraminiferal
15 specimens were digitally imaged under the Phillips XL30 Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)
16 in the laboratories of the Egyptian Mineral Resources Authority (E.M.R.A.), having been
17 sputter-coated for 8 min with gold at 20–30 mA°. Calcareous nannofossils were studied
18 following the method of Bramlette and Sullivan (1961) and Hay (1965).
19 Lithostratigraphy
20 The Coniacian-Santonian succession in north eastern Egypt and Jordan comprises four rock
21 units, from north to south: Wadi Umm Ghudran and Alia Sandstone formations (Jordan) and
22 Themed and Matulla formations (Egypt/Sinai) (Figs. 1- 5 and 6A-B). These are described below,
6
1 from older to younger (Figs. 3, 4 and 5). The abbreviations Jo (Jordan) and Eg/S (Egypt /Sinai)
2 are used to distinguish the location of these units.
3 Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation (Parker, 1970): Jo
4 The Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation of central Jordan disconformably overlies the late Turonian
5 the Ajlun Group (Wadi As Sir Limestone Formation). In central Jordan (Karak and Wadi Mujib
6 sections), the Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation (Fig.2) has a threefold subdivision, in ascending
7 order, the Mujib Chalk, Tafilah and Dhiban Chalk members (MacDonald 1965; Powell 1988,
8 1989 and Powell and Moh’d 2011, 2012): (Figs. 4, 6A and 6C). The formation has a reduced
9 overall thickness in north Jordan (Wadi El-Ghafar and the Wadi Umm Ghudran type section)
10 which was located basinward; here the threefold subdivision is less clearly represented. The
11 formation in central Jordan is equivalent to the Menuha Formation of the Negev in Israel (Reiss
12 et al., 1985; Meilijson et al 2014), the latter offset by ca. 100 km by the left-lateral Dead Sea
13 Transform (Freund et al. 1970).
14 The Mujib Chalk Member is ca. 11 m thick and marks the lower member of the Wadi Umm
15 Ghudran Formation, and is formed mainly of chalky limestone (Fig.4).
16 The Tafilah Member is ca. 65 m thick and is composed of marl, marly limestone with chert
17 interbeds, the latter derived from silicoflagellates and radiolaria (Powell and Moh’d 2012); the
18 macrofauna includes oysters and echinoids (Fig. 4). It is interpreted to be a shallow-water
19 hemipelagic deposit (Powell 1988 1989).
20 The upper unit, the Dhiban Chalk Member, is ca. 18 to 30 m thick and is composed of chalky
21 limestone rich in foraminifera. The base is marked by an oyster/coral encrusted hardground in
22 Wadi Mujib, overlain by detrital phosphatic chalk passing up to chalk. (Powell and Moh’d
23 2012).
7
1 Alia Sandstone Formation: Jo
2 Although the tripartite Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation is well exposed adjacent to the Dead Sea
3 rift valley margins, to the southeast (i.e. shorewards) in Jordan it passes laterally to the coeval
4 Alia Sandstone Formation comprising (Fig.2) cross-bedded and Thalassinoides-burrowed
5 siliciclastics, interbedded with marl, dolomite and thin chert beds (Powell 1989; Powell and
6 Moh’d 2011).
7 Themed Formation (Ziko et al. 1993): Eg/S
8 The predominantly carbonate deposits of the Themed Formation are restricted to the north
9 central area of the Sinai and are coeval with the mixed siliciclastic-carbonate deposits of the
10 Matulla Formation in south Sinai and Eastern Desert (Ziko et al. 1993; Farouk and Faris 2012;
11 Fig. 5). The Themed Formation unconformably overlies the Wata Formation of Turonian age;
12 the upper part of the Wata Formation in this area is characterized by yellowish grey and brown,
13 bioturbated, massive, stromatoporoidal limestone with some gastropods (Nerinea sp.) rich in
14 worm tubes. The Themed Formation is overlain unconformably by the Sudr Chalk Formation of
15 Campanian-Maastrichtian age (Fig.5). The thickness of the Themed Formation at the type
16 locality is 160 m (Ziko et al. 1993), whereas in the Ras el-Gifa section it is reduced to 37 m.
17 Here, the Themed Formation can be subdivided into two informal members:
18 Lower limestone Member is ca. 18 m thick and consists of argillaceous limestone intercalated
19 with marl rich in oysters and echinoids.
20 Upper Chalky Limestone Member is ca. 19 m thick and consists of hemipelagic chalky facies. In
21 view of the lack of distinctive vertical facies changes between the Themed and Sudr formations
22 some authors (e.g., Khalil and Zahran 2014) considered the lower part of the Sudr Chalk
23 Formation at Wadi El Mizeira (northeastern Sinai) to be Santonian in age. In the present study,
8
1 the top of the Themed Formation is characterized by burrow-filled, argillaceous chalky limestone
2 overlain by the Sudr Chalk, which is well-marked by a white, massive chalky limestone rich in
3 planktonic foraminifera.
4 Matulla Formation (Ghorab 1961): Eg/S
5 The Coniacian-Santonian Matulla Formation ranges in thickness from 55 m at Gebel Nazazat to
6 65 m at Gebel Qabaliat. It is subdivided into three distinctive informal members (Fig. 5), namely
7 i) the Lower Clastic Member, ii) the Middle Mixed Siliciclastic-Carbonate Member, and iii) the
8 Upper Carbonate Member (Figs. 5 and 6B). The formation is equivalent, in part, to the Themed
9 Formation of the southern Sinai and Eastern Desert (Fig. 2).
10 The Matulla Formation also unconformably overlies the Turonian Wata Formation and is
11 overlain by the Sudr Chalk Formation (Figs. 2, 5 and 6B). A rich megafossil assemblage is
12 recorded in middle member of the Matulla Formation, overlying a faunally barren interval. The
13 most dominant macrofossils in the middle member include bivalves: Pycnodonte costei
14 (Coquand), Plicatula ferryi Coquand, Gyrostrea thevestensis (Coquand), Flemingostrea
15 boucheroni (Coquand). Issawi et al. (2009) in their stratigraphic study of the Matulla Formation
16 in west Central Sinai, raised the rank of the formation to a group status embracing two
17 formations; the Nubia Formation at the base (Taref Sandstone “Coniacian” and Quseir clastics
18 “Santonian”) and the Duwi Formation “Campanian” at the top, equivalent in the present study to
19 Lower Clastic, Middle Mixed Siliciclastic-Carbonate, and Upper Carbonate members,
20 respectively. According to Hermina (1990), the Taref Sandstone Formation (characterized
21 mainly by cross-bedded sandstone, thinning towards the north) is considered Turonian in age,
22 and the Quseir Variegated Shale of early Campanian age (Fig. 2). The Duwi Formation is
23 distinguished by its economic phosphate beds southward in Egypt, but in Sinai only a few thin
9
1 phosphatic limestones and coprolites are recorded (Ahmad et al. 2014). Therefore, in the present
2 study, it is prefered to use the term Matulla Formation for these three informal members,
3 although the upper part may be early Campanian in age and a correlative of the lower part of the
4 Campanian Duwi Formation of southern Egypt. The unconformable boundary of the Matulla
5 Formation with the underlying upper Turonian Wata Formation can be traced throughout the
6 whole of the Sinai and Eastern Desert with a marked vertical lithofacies change from carbonates
7 to siliciclastics. The presence of a 20 cm thick palaeosoil layer, including plant remains, at the
8 base of the Duwi Formation (equivalent in the present study to the Upper Carbonate Member)
9 indicates an unconformable relationship between the upper Campanian Duwi Formation and the
10 underlying Santonian to lower Campanian Matulla Formation (Issawi et al. 2009). The upper
11 boundary of the Matulla Formation with the overlying Sudr Chalk Formation is unconformable
12 throughout the Sinai and Eastern Desert. This boundary is well marked in the field (Fig. 6B)
13 where the Sudr Chalk Formation is characterized by its white chalky limestone, indicating a
14 period of marine transgression, above the brownish colour of the regressive mixed siliciclastic-
15 carbonate Matulla Formation (Lüning et al 1998; Samuel et al. 2009; Farouk and Faris 2012;
16 Farouk, 2015). The disconformble boundary is also present in to the north in the Negev, Israel
17 (Honigstein et al. 1987; Almogi-Labin et al. 1991 and 1993; Meilijson et al. 2014).
18
19 Sudr Chalk Formation
20 In Sinai the Sudr Chalk Formation is divided into: the Campanian Markha Member, composed of
21 chalky limestone rich in Pycnodonte vesicularis (Lamarck) with chert and phosphate nodules,
22 especially at the base, and the Maastrichtian Abu Zenima Member, composed of chalky
23 limestone representing high rates of carbonate sedimentation in outer-ramp locations across most
10
1 of northern Egypt (Farouk and Faris 2012; Farouk 2014). This definition of the Sudr Chalk
2 Formation is applicable in the south where the chert is present, and towards the north, where
3 chert is absent
4 Biostratigraphy
5 The biostratigraphic framework of the investigated successions is based mainly on planktonic
6 foraminifera and calcareous nannofossils. The presence of many intervals barren of planktonic
7 foraminifera and containing only sparse calcareous nannofossils, may be due to high energy,
8 shallower-marine lithofacies in central Jordan (Tafilah Member and Alia Formation; Powell
9 1989), and in some intervals in the Matulla Formation (Egypt). Five nannofossil zones and three
10 Tethyan planktonic foraminiferal zones were identified in the present study, based on the lowest
11 and highest occurrence (LO, HO) of the marker species (Figs. 7-9). The most biostratigraphically
12 significant planktonic foraminifera and calcareous nannofossils are illustrated in Figs. 10 and 11.
13 Calcareous nannofossils
14 The CC nannofossil zonation of Sissingh (1977) and Perch-Nielsen (1985) is used in the present
15 study. The following five nannofossil biozones are recognised: Lucianorhabdus malefomis
16 (CC12), Micula staurophora (CC14), Reinhardtites anthophorus (CC15), Lucianorhabdus
17 cayeuxii (CC16), and Broinsonia parca (CC18) zones (Figs. 7 and 8). Lucianorhabdus malefomis
18 (CC12) Zone: this is defined by the LO of Luianorhabdus malefomis Reinhardt to the LO of
19 Mathasterites furcatus Deflandre. L. malefomis is very rare or absent in open-ocean settings,
20 where Eiffellithus eximus (Stover) is a better marker taxa (Perch-Nielsen, 1985). Burnett (1998)
21 noted that the LO of E. eximus occurs within Subzone UC8a, which can be correlated with the
22 base CC12 Zone and, furthermore, can be used as zonal marker according to Gradstein et al.
11
1 (2012).The base of this zone was not determined in the studied sections which are
2 stratigraphically higher. Representative taxa are recorded from the upper parts of the Turonian
3 Wadi As Sir Limestone (Jo) and Wata (Eg/S) formations. The preservation, abundance and
4 diversity of the calcareous nannofossils fluctuate markedly within the deposits of the CC12 Zone.
5 The Karak and Wadi El-Ghafar (Jo) sections record a moderate preservation of calcareous
6 nannofossils which are common to abundant with a relatively high diversity, whereas the Wadi
7 Mujib section (Jo) and other sections in Egypt, yielded relatively sparse and poorly preserved
8 calcareous nannofossils probably as a result of dolomitization and shallowing
9 palaeoenvironments. However, the assemblages of the CC12 Zone are generally dominated by
10 Watznaueria barnesae (Black), W. biporta Bukry, Zeugrhabdotus erectus (Deflandre in
11 Deflandre & Fert), Cyclagelosphaera margerelii Noël, Eprolithus floralis Stradner,
12 Calcicalathina alta Perch-Nielsen, Eiffellithus eximus (Stover), Eiffellithus turriseiffelii
13 (Deflandre in Deflandre & Fert), Praediscosphaera spinosa (Bramlette & Martini), and
14 Radiolithus planus Stover (Fig. 8). A late Turonian age is inferred for this zone.
15 Micula staurophora (CC14) Zone: This zone is defined by the LO of Micula decussata (Gardet)
16 to the LO of Reinhardtites anthophorus (Deflandre). The Micula staurophora (CC14) Zone of
17 middle–upper Coniacian is recorded from the Mujib Chalk Member in the Karak section (Jo) and
18 the lower Themed Formation of the Ras el Gifa section (Eg/S). In Egypt it is found to be absent
19 in the Matulla Formation as a result of the shallower, siliciclastic nature of the
20 palaeoenvironment. The preservation of calcareous nannofossils of the CC14 Zone is generally
21 poor. It overlies directly CC12 Zone of late Turonian age, which is recorded from the Wadi As
22 Sir Limestone Formation in Jordan and the equivalent Wata Formation in Egypt. In general, the
23 identified taxa in this zone are rare, with moderate diversity. The assemblage of this interval is
12
1 similar to that of the underlying CC12 Zone, with the addition of occurrences of the nominate
2 taxon (Fig. 8). A Coniacian age is indicated.
3 Reinhardtites anthophorus (CC15) Zone: It is defined by the LO of Reinhardtites anthophorus to
4 the LO of Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii Deflandre. This zone is recorded in the Wadi El-Ghafar (Jo),
5 and Ras el Gifa sections (Eg/S) (Fig. 9). In the Karak and Wadi Mujib sections (Jo), this biozone
6 is missing, where the LO of Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii and Reinhardtites anthophorus appear
7 together in sample 144 in the Karak section and sample 84 above the barren interval in the Wadi
8 Mujib section or very shallow marine deposited including only some sporadic microplanktonic
9 fauna. The dominant taxa are similar to those of the underlying CC14 with the addition of the
10 Broinsonia parca expansa Wise & Watkins in Wise 1983 and Reinhardtites anthophorus (Fig.
11 8). The stratigraphic age of CC15 Zone was thought to coincide approximately with the earliest
12 Santonian (e.g., Robaszynski et al. 1990; Hardenbol et al. 1998; Gradstein et al. 2012). However,
13 the recently erected GSSP in northern Spain places this zone in the late Coniacian (Lamolda et
14 al. 2014; Fig. 9) in accordance with the present study.
15 Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii (CC16) Zone: this is defined by the LO Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii to the
16 LO of Calculites obscurus (Deflandre). Zone CC16 is present in all sections measured in Egypt
17 and Jordan (Fig. 9). The upper part of this biozone could not be delineated owing to the absence
18 of the marker species Calculites obscurus due to a major unconformity. An early Santonian age
19 is indicated.
20 Broinsonia parca parca (CC18) Zone: this is defined by the LO of Broinsonia parca (Stradner)
21 parca Bukry to the HO Marthasterites furcatus (Deflandre in Deflandre & Fert). It is recorded in
22 all the studied sections (e.g. Upper Carbonate Memember of the Matulla Formation andbasal
23 Sudr Chalk Formation in Egypt or the equivalent Dhiban Chalk Member and the overlying
13
1 Amman Silicified Limestone Formation in Jordan). As a result of the major early Campanian
2 marine transgression calcareous nannofossils are common, with moderate to good preservation.
3 The dominant species in this zone are: Watznaueria barnesae (Black in Black & Barnes),
4 Watznaueria bioporta Bukry, Eiffellithus eximius, Prediscosphaera cretacea (Arkhangelsky),
5 Cribrosphaerella ehrenbergii, Retecapsa crenulata (Bramlette & Martini), and Tranolithus
6 orionatus (Reinhardt), as well as rare forms of Broinsonia parca constricta Hattner and Wind,
7 Arkhangelskiella cymbiformis Vekshina and Chiastozygus litterarius (Górka) (Fig. 8). In the
8 present study, the CC18 Zone overlies directly CC16 Zone; the Calculites obscurus (CC17)
9 Zone, based on the interval from the LO of Calculites obscurus to the LO of Broinsonia parca
10 parca is absent in all the studied sections due to the unconformity at the Santonian/Campanian
11 boundary (Fig.9). However, Farouk and Faris (2012) recorded this zone in the Mitlla Pass
12 section, Egypt, about 8 km from the Ras el Gifa section indicating the local irregularity of this
13 unconformity.
14 Planktonic foraminifera
15 The planktonic foraminiferal data and a summary of their biostratigraphy are presented in Figs.
16 7-9. Preservation of the planktonic foraminifera varies from moderate to poor through the studied
17 sections. The low-latitude Tethyan planktonic foraminiferal biozonations of Caron (1985) and
18 Robaszynski et al. (2000) are used in the present study.
19 Dicarinella concavata Zone: This zone covers the interval from the LO of Dicarinella concavata
20 (Brotzen) to the LO of Dicarinella asymetrica (Sigal). It is recorded from the lower part of Wadi
21 Umm Ghudran Formation (Mujib Chalk Member in central Jordan), whereas in Egypt, the
22 equivalent interval is nearly barren of planktonic foraminifera; it may be correlative with
14
1 ammonite zones Barroisiceras onilahyense Basse, Metatissotia fourneli Bayle and Subtissotia
2 africana (Perou) of Coniacian age (Obaidalla and Kassab 2002) (Figs. 4 - 5).
3 Poor to moderately preserved planktonic foraminifera are recorded in this zone, including
4 Whiteinella/Hedbergella spp., Dicarinella primitive Dalbiez, D. imbricate (Mornod),
5 Contusotruncana fornicata (Plummer) and Heterohelix globulosa (Ehrenberg) in addition to the
6 zonal marker (Fig. 9). This zone is equivalent to upper part of CC12 to CC14 nannofossil zones of
7 late Turonian - Coniacian age as mentioned in many standard schemes (e.g., Premoli Silva and
8 Sliter 1999; Gradstein et al. 2012; Haq 2014; Coccioni and Premoli Silva 2015). In the present
9 study, the LO of the zonal marker is recorded above the Turonian/Coniacian unconformity which
10 is also marked by the absence of CC13 nannofossil zone. In low-latitude successions such as in
11 Tunisia, Egypt and the present study the LO of D. concavata is stratigraphically relatively high
12 with the index-species first appearing in the late Coniacian CC14 nannofossil Zone (e.g. Caron
13 1985; Nederbragt 1991; Abdel-Kireem et al. 1995; Farouk and Faris 2012; Elamri et al. 2014). The
14 zone spans the Coniacian Stage.
15 Dicarinella asymetrica Zone: This zone is defined as the Total Range of Dicarinella asymetrica. It
16 is recorded in the upper part of the Tafilah Member of the Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation and
17 upper chalky limestone in the Themed Formation at the Ras el-Gifa section. Al-Rifaiy et al. (1993)
18 observed the absence of the marker zonal boundary taxon Dicarinella asymetrica, and assigned a
19 late Coniacian age for the whole of the Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation in Jordan. However, the
20 zonal marker is consistently present, but never abundant, and uncommon in the shallow-water
21 lithofacies (e.g. Wadi Mujib section). The occurrence of Dicarinella asymetrica in the studied
22 sections corresponds to CC16 nannofossil Zone (Fig. 9). The Dicarinella asymetrica Zone occurs
23 in the Santonian Stage as noted in many of the standard schemes across different palaeolatitudes
15
1 (e.g. Caron 1985; Premoli-Silva and Sliter 1999; Gradstein et al. 2012; Haq 2014; Meilijson et al.
2 2014). The preserved (lower) part of the Dicarinella asymetrica Zone as indicated by the
3 equivalent CC16 nannofossil zone includes well-preserved and abundant Dicarinella asymetrica,
4 Marginotruncana sinusoa Porthault and M. undulata (Lehmann). In the present study, most of the
5 upper Santonian Dicarinella asymetrica Zone is missing due to the depositional hiatus that spans
6 the equivalent CC17 Zone. The zone spans the Santonian Stage, although the upper part is not
7 represented in the studied sections due to a depositional hiatus.
8 Globotruncanita elevata Zone: This zone was defined as the partial range zone from the HO of
9 Dicarinella asymetrica to the LO of Globotruncana ventricosa White. Planktonic foraminifera are
10 abundant, with moderate to good preservation. This interval is characterized by the HOs of
11 Marginotruncana and Dicarinella, and the abundance of several species of Globotruncana. It is
12 also characterized by the LOs of Globotruncana arca (Cushman), and G. bulloides Vogler. This
13 zone spans the equivalent calcareous nannofossil zones CC17-CC18 and CC19 indicating an early
14 Campanian age (Gradstein et al. 2012).
15 Stage boundaries
16 Many stratigraphical problems have been observed relating to the correlation of Coniacian –
17 Campanian biostratigraphic events across different palaeolatitudes in recent years (Farouk and
18 Faris 2012; Razmjooei et al. 2014; Coccioni and Premoli Silva 2015). This has led to the
19 establishment of several different planktonic foraminiferal and calcareous nannofossil zonal
20 schemes with different age assignments, as noted above. To resolve this issue, it may be
21 necessary to study the boundaries in a much broader context based upon integrated
22 biostratigraphy. The palaeogeographic applicability of biostatigraphic zonations is influenced by
16
1 palaeolatitudinally controlled temperature gradients and the niche preferences of marker species
2 (Bralower et al. 1995).
3 The Turonian/Coniacian (T/C) boundary
4 At the proposed GSSP (Walaszczyk et al. 2010) in Salzgitter-Salder Quarry (Lower Saxony,
5 Germany) and the Słupia Nadbrzeżna river-cliff section (central Poland), the T/C boundary falls
6 within the Dicarinella concavata Zone and nannofossil Zone CC13, between the first occurrence
7 of Broinsonia parca parca and the last occurrence of Helicolithus turonicus Varol & Girgis.
8 However, the T/C boundary in the present study area is represented by the unconformity surface
9 (e.g. base of the Mujib Chalk Member) and the absence of both the nannofossil Zone CC13 and
10 the equivalent lower part of Dicarinella concavata Zone. Walaszczyk et al. (2010) reported that
11 the Broinsonia parca parca Zone falls into the lower Coniacian. In the present study and
12 previous publications covering the southern Tethys, the LO of the marker zone Broinsonia parca
13 parca appears stratigraphically higher, up to the lower Campanian (Perch-Nilsen 1985; Burnett
14 1998; Gradstein et al. 2012; Farouk and Faris 2012). This may be the result of provincialism at
15 different palaeolatitudes. In the present study, the precise biostratigraphical determination of the
16 T/C boundary is hampered by the unconformity surface and depositional hiatus marked by the
17 absence of nannofossil Zone CC13.
18
19 The Coniacian/Santonian boundary
20 According to the GSSP definition, the base of the Santonian falls in the lower part of the
21 Dicarinella asymetrica Zone and nannofossil Zone CC16 (Lamolda et al. 2014). At the GSSP in
22 northern Spain and the Gubbio section in Italy the D. asymetrica Zone is taken lower down in the
17
1 upper Coniacian (Lamolda et al. 2014; Coccioni and Premoli Silva 2015). However, Lamolda et
2 al. (2014) used the first common occurrence of D. asymetrica to define broadly the base
3 Santonian in the palaeotropics. In other Neo-Tethyan provinces, especially in the Middle East,
4 the LO of D. asymetrica is also used to define the base of the Santonian Stage (e.g., Caron 1985;
5 Premoli Silva and Sliter 1995; Robaszynski et al. 2000; Petrizzo 2000, 2002; Sari 2006; Farouk
6 and Faris 2012; Gradstein et al. 2012) although Meilijson et al. (2014) take the boundary slightly
7 higher. These variations in the stratigraphic range of planktonic foraminifera are also observed in
8 the nannofossil zonation, where the most important marker species (e.g., Lithastrinus grillii
9 Stradner and Lithastrinus septenarius Forchheimer) were not recorded in the present study as a
10 result of provincialism in the faunas across Neo-Tethys.
11 The Santonian/Campanian boundary
12 The Santonian/Campanian boundary is, according to Perch-Nielsen (1985), taken to lie
13 somewhere within nannofossil Zone CC17, and the upper part of UC12 Zone according to
14 Burnett (1998), below the FO of A. cymbiformis, and B. parca constricta. The same observation
15 is found in the time-scale chart of Gradstein et al. (2012) and Haq (2014). Gale et al. (2008)
16 proposed the Santonian/Campanian boundary stratotype section (i.e. the Waxahaxhie Dam
17 Spillway section of north Texas, USA), and noted that the last appearance of Dicarinella
18 asymetrica coincided with the first appearance of the calcareous nannofossil subspecies
19 Broinsonia parca parca and Broinsonia parca constricta that corresponds approximately to the
20 Austin/Taylor unconformity.
21 Many authors noted that Broinsonia parca parca appears higher in the lower Campanian
22 above Arkhangelskiella cymbiformis (Perch-Nielsen 1985; Burnett 1998; Gradstein et al. 2012).
23 The LO of Arkhangelskiella cymbiformis should be referred to lower Campanian UC13 Zone
18
1 (Burnett, 1998). Other authors note that the Arkhangelskiella cymbiformis and B. parca parca
2 may lie somewhere within the upper Santonian Stage, coincident with the interval recorded
3 below the Santonian-Campanian Boundary Event (SCBE), such as at Gubbio (Voigt et al. 2012)
4 and in Iran (Razmjooei et al. 2014). Gale et al (2008) recorded the joint LO of B. parca parca
5 and B. parca constricta (= base of nannofossil Subzone UC14b) above the Austin/Taylor
6 unconformity. Farouk and Faris (2012) noted that rare specimens of A. cymbiformis have been
7 observed in the late Santonian (CC17) and, furthermore, Gale et al. (2008) recorded the LO of A.
8 cymbiformis near the base of nannofossil Subzone UC13a, indicating that the range of the A.
9 cymbiformis extends down into the Santonian. In the present study, the LO of A. cymbiformis is
10 recorded at Wadi El-Ghafar section within the equivalent planktonic foraminifera D. asymetrica
11 Zone indicating a late Santonian age.
12 Many authors have noted the extended HO of Marginotruncana spp. into the basal
13 Campanian stage (e.g., Farouk and Faris 2012; Elamri et al. 2014), while the HO of Dicarinella
14 asymetrica has been interpreted in two different approaches in planktonic foraminifera
15 biostratigraphy: the first considers the HO of Dicarinella asymetrica to correspond to
16 Santonian/Campanian boundary (Caron 1985; Robaszynski et al. 2000; Sari 2006; Gradstein et
17 al. 2012; Elamri et al. 2014; Haq 2014; Meilijson et al. 2014; Coccioni and Premoli Silva, 2015);
18 the second considers that it extends to earliest Campanian age (e.g., Premoli Silva and Sliter
19 1995; Petrizzo 2000, 2002; Gale et al. 2008; Ardestani et al. 2012). The marker species of
20 calcareous nannofossil CC18 Zone, B. parca parca, appears together in most studied sections
21 above the Santonian/Campanian unconformity surface which is associated with the sharp
22 extinction of Dicarinella and Marginotruncana, and the presence of relatively abundant
23 Globotruncanita and Globotruncana genera that characterize the Globotruncanita elevata Zone.
19
1 Microplanktonic zonation: discussion
2 Jordan
3 In Jordan, no detailed microplanktonic biostratigraphy has been carried out to date based on an
4 integrated study of calcareous nannofossils and planktonic foraminifera. Such integrated studies
5 are considered to provide a higher resolution biostratigraphy than the use of either group alone.
6 Little research has been conducted on the microplanktonic biostratigraphy of the Coniacian–
7 Campanian Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation in Jordan, a period of significant change in sea level,
8 bioproductivity and sedimentation on the Arabian Platform following marine drowning of the
9 Turonian rimmed carbonate platform (Flexer et al. 1986; Reiss et al 1985; Almogi-Labin et al
10 1993; Powell and Moh’d 2011; Meilijson et al. 2014). Three different age-determinations have
11 been proposed for this formation in Jordan: 1) late Coniacian (for the whole formation) (Al-
12 Rifaiy et al. 1993); 2) Coniacian-Santonian (Koch 1968; Mustafa 2000; Mustafa et al. 2002) and
13 3) a Coniacian-Campanian age (e.g., Powell 1988, 1989; Moh’d 2000; Powell and Moh’d 2011).
14 The Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation is here assigned to a Coniacian–Campanian age based on
15 the identified calcareous nannofossil assemblages. The latter range from Micula staurophora
16 (CC14), Reinhardtits anthophorous (CC15) and Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii (CC16), to
17 Broinsonia parca parca (CC18). The equivalent planktonic foraminifera zones are D. concavata,
18 D. asymetrica and G. elevata. Absence of the lower Coniacian CC13 Zone and the upper
19 Santonian Calculites obscurus (CC17) Zone indicates three periods of depositional hiatus,
20 namely, at the Turonian-Coniacian boundary (Wadi As Sir Limestone Formation – Mujib Chalk
21 Member boundary), the Coniacian-Santonian boundary (within Tafilah Member ) and the
22 Santonian-Campanian stage boundary (base of the Dhiban Chalk Member). These
20
1 disconformities are represented by bioerosive hardgrounds at the top of the Wadi As Sir
2 Limestone Formation and at the top of the Tafilah Member (Powell and Moh’d 2012).
3 Egypt (Sinai)
4 The Matulla Formation is characterized by relatively sparse and poorly preserved
5 microplanktonic assemblages due to the nature of the nearshore, shallower-water
6 palaeoenvironments. Many authors consider the Matulla Formation to be Coniacian-Santonian
7 in age and that the Sudr Chalk Formation marks the base of the Campanian (e.g., Shahin and
8 Kora 1991; Farouk 2015). Other authors assigned a lower Campanian age to the Upper
9 Carbonate Member of the Matulla Formation (Abdel-Gawad et al. 2004) or with equivalent
10 Duwi Formation of the Matulla Group (Cherif et al. 1989; Issawi et al. 2009; Attia et al., 2013).
11 In the present study, the Upper Carbonate Member of the Matulla Formation contains sparse and
12 low diversity calcareous nannofossils. The assemblage recorded at Gebel Qabaliat, includes
13 Watznaueria barnesae, W. biporta, Quadrum gartneri, and Quadrum sissinghii. Furthermore,
14 this member is overlain by the Sudr Chalk Formation yielding Globotruncanita elevata Zone of
15 early–middle Campanian age. The presence of Quadrum sissinghii in the Upper Carbonate
16 Member may reflect an earliest Campanian age for the uppermost part of the Matulla Formation.
17 In addition to the LO of G. elevata in the southern Tethys, this species was found considerably
18 later, just above the Santonian/Campanian boundary (e.g., Farouk and Faris 2012; Meilijson et
19 al. 2014).
20 The Upper Carbonate Member correlates well with the Phosphate-bearing Unit of the
21 Matulla Formation, which is recorded from the Esh El Mallaha area, Egypt (Cherif and Ismail
22 1991; Ismail 2012). These authors noted that this Unit might be of Campanian age as it
23 is overlain by chalk yielding late Campanian age Globotruncanita calcarata Zone.
21
1 Lithofacies associations
2 Twenty-six lithofacies types (FT) have been identified and are briefly described in Table 1 and
3 illustrated in Figs. 12 to 13. These facies types are grouped into six lithofacies associations that
4 have been assigned to six depositional environments, the latter ranging from: a littoral
5 siliciclastic facies belt, peritidal carbonate facies belt, intertidal carbonateramp deposits, high-
6 energy ooid shoals and shelly biostromes, shallow subtidal facies belt, and pelagic facies belt.
7 These lithofacies associations are described below in relation to their depositional environments.
8 The distribution of the different lithofacies recognized throughout the Wadi Ghudran Formation
9 (Jo) and the Matulla Formation (Eg/S) is illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5.
10 Littoral siliciclastic facies belt
11 This facies belt is recorded from the Lower Clastic Member of the Matulla Formation (Eg/S)
12 (and its equivalent, the Alia Sandstone Formation in southeast Jordan; Powell 1989). It
13 comprises four facies types: glauconitic ferruginous siltstone and shale (FT1), calcareous
14 glauconitic quartz arenite (FT2), quartz arenite (FT3); the last facies and sandy evaporitic
15 recrystallized lime-mudstone (FT4) are recorded from the upper part of the Middle Mixed
16 siliciclastic-carbonate Member of the Matulla Formation. The Alia Sandstone mostly comprises
17 FT2 and FT3 (Powell 1989). The scarcity of fauna and bioturbation suggests deposition under
18 restricted shallow-marine conditions in a wide intertidal to peritidal-flat siliciclastic setting, with
19 pulses of terrigenous siliciclastics derived from the hinterland located to the south and southeast.
20 The high maturity of the quartz arenite indicates deposition in high-energy, shallow-water in a
21 lower shoreface environment (Pettijhon et al. 1987; El-Azabi and El-Araby 2007; Wanas 2008).
22
1 High maturity quartz suggests derivation from mature Lower Palaeozoic and/or Lower
2 Cretaceous sandstones of the Arabian Craton (Powell et al. 2014).
3 Peritidal carbonate facies belt
4 This lithofacies belt consists mainly of dolomitic mudstone with two facies types: sandy
5 ferruginous sandy dolomicrite (FT5) and ferruginous glauconitic dolomicrite (FT6). It is
6 recorded in the upper part of both Lower Clastic and Middle Mixed siliciclastic-carbonate
7 members of the Matulla Formation (Eg/S) (Fig. 5) and the upper part of the Tafilah Member (Jo).
8 The size and fabric of the dolomite rhombs, lime-mud relicts and sand content suggest it was
9 formed from early diagenetic dolomitization of an original sandy lime-mudstone in a peritidal
10 setting (Powell and Moh’d 2012). The quartz sand is either fluvial in origin or derived from
11 offshore-onshore storm events. The finely crystalline dolomite with rare evaporites is interpreted
12 as being deposited in the upper intertidal to supratidal zone of inner platform during a sea-level
13 fall (Wanas 2008).
14 Intertidal carbonate ramp deposits
15 This lithofacies belt is represented mainly by the Upper Carbonate Member of the Matulla
16 Formation (Eg/S) and the Tafilah Member (Jo) of the Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation (Figs. 4
17 and 5). Facies types comprise: coarse-grained dolomitic mudstone (FT7), siliceous recrystallized
18 lime-mustone (FT8), recrystallized dolomicrite (FT9), glauconitic sandy phosphatic lime-
19 mudstone (FT10), ooidal bioclastic wacke/packstone (FT11) and chert-bearing facies (FT12)
20 together with sparse calcareous claystone. Sparse, low-diversity bivalves are present in the lower
21 part of this facies association, including: Pycnodonte vesicularis hippodium and Py. vesicularis
22 nikitini. The bivalve fauna and lithofacies suggest deposition in a shallow subtidal environment
23
1 below normal wave base. Towards the top, the scarce, low-diversity fossils preserved in a lime–
2 mud matrix with floating quartz sand grains suggest deposition in a restricted lower intertidal
3 regime (Wilson 1975; Flügel 2004).
4 High-energy ooid shoals and shelly biostromes
5 This lithofacies association is recorded in the Themed (Eg/S) and Wadi Umm Ghudran (Jo)
6 formations, represented by onco-ooid packstone (FT13) and glauconitic peloidal packstone
7 (FT14), indicating a moderate to high-energy, intertidal shoal depositional environment (Kostic
8 and Aigner 2004).
9 Shallow subtidal facies belt
10 This lithofacies association (FT15 to FT 23) is predominantly recorded in the Matulla Formation
11 and lower unit of the Themed Formation (Eg/S) in addition to the Tafilah Member (Wadi Umm
12 Ghudran Formation (Jo)). In the Matulla Formation, this facies association is represented by
13 shallow subtidal, mixed siliciclastic-carbonate shelf lithofacies including molluscan wacke/
14 packstone intercalated with calcareous claystone. The composition and texture suggest
15 deposition in a shallow subtidal environment (Flügel, 2004).
16 In the Themed Formation, this facies association consists of argillaceous limestone
17 intercalated with fossiliferous marl containing oysters and echinoid fragments. The microfacies
18 are represented mainly by bioclastic wacke/packstone (FT17 and FT18), sandy bioclastic
19 packstone (FT20) and oncoidal bioclastic packstone (FT21). The lack of open-marine biota such
20 as ammonoids and planktonic foraminifera, contrasting with abundant echinoids and oysters, as
21 well as the predominance of argillaceous limestone, reflects a fully marine, lagoonal
22 environment. In the Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation (Jo), this facies consists of bioclastic
24
1 wacke/packstone (FT17 and FT18), bio-intraclastic sandy packstone (FT24) and lime-mudstone
2 (FT16) (Fig. 4).
3
4 Pelagic facies
5 This lithofacies consists of hemipelagic chalky facies and includes two facies types (Table 1):
6 foraminiferal lime-mud (FT25) and foraminiferal wacke/packstone (FT26). It is recorded from
7 the upper unit of the Themed Formation, Sudr Chalk Formation (Eg/S), and from the Mujib
8 Chalk (lower part) and the Dhiban Chalk members of the Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation (Jo).
9 This facies association is characterized by abundant and high-diversity, well-preserved
10 planktonic and benthic foraminifera embedded in a dense lime mud interpreted as a pelagic
11 facies of deep subtidal to middle shelf environments.
12
13 Depositional model
14 Regional variations in sedimentary facies from carbonate ramp facies towards the north, to
15 mixed siliciclastic/carbonate facies in the south and southeast, are attributed to their relative
16 palaeogeographic positions on a homoclinal ramp at the southern margin of the Neo-Tethys
17 Ocean (Powell and Moh’d 2011). The variations in the relative palaeogeographic position and
18 water depth were influenced to a large extent by compressive deformation and variable regional
19 uplift of the former stable platform of northeast Africa and Arabia as a result of deformation of
20 the Syrian arc fold belt (Krenkel 1924; Shahar 1994).
21 In general, during Coniacian-Santonian time, a carbonate facies belt was prevalent in the
22 northward areas of the outer ramp (including the Themed Formation in North Sinai and
25
1 Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation in central/north Jordan). The three members of the Wadi
2 Ghudran Formation are interpreted as having formed under fluctuating deeper and shallower-
3 marine settings on a pelagic ramp (Powell and Moh’d 2011). The lateral passage to a mixed
4 siliciclastic/carbonate facies belt of the Matulla Formation (Eg/S) and Alia Formation (Jo) was
5 probably in response to hinterland uplift and siliciclastic progradation in south Egypt and the
6 Arabian Craton. The increase in siliciclastics to the southeast is consistent with regional trends
7 seen in Egypt (Bauer et al. 2002; El-Azabi and El-Araby 2007; Farouk and Faris 2012).
8 In southern Egypt the Coniacian to Santonian succession is missing (Hermina 1990) or is
9 represented by alluvial lithofacies (Nubia Sandstone) (Figs. 2, 14). Farther east, in Saudi Arabia,
10 the Coniacian to Santonian succession is also missing. Here, the Cenomanian-Turonian Wasia
11 Formation is disconformably overlain by the Campanian-Maastrichtian Aruma Formation
12 (Powers et al. 1966). In the subsurface of the North Western Desert of Egypt, shallow-water
13 carbonate deposits are observed in the Abu Roush Formation (Issawi et al. 2009).
14 The Matulla Formation (Eg/S) was deposited predominantly in shallow-marine
15 environments, and exhibits rapid vertical lithofacies changes with twenty-four siliciclastic and
16 carbonate lithofacies. The lithofacies associations are assigned to three main depositional
17 environments: a) marginal-marine inner ramp (including siliciclastic shelf, peritidal carbonate
18 facies shelf, and mixed siliciclastic-carbonate shelf), b) intertidal carbonate platform deposits,
19 and c) high-energy ooid shoals and shelly biostromes). Towards the north, increased carbonate
20 productivity is observed in the coeval Themed Formation indicating deposition in a shallow-
21 marine environment with oscillations from intertidal to deep subtidal (Fig. 14). In contrast, the
22 depositional environment of the chalk lithofacies in north and central Jordan represents a pelagic
23 carbonate ramp, with co-eval off-shore sand banks forming the sandy facies in southeast Jordan
26
1 (Alia Formation of Powell and Moh’d 2011; Makhlouf et al. 2015). During the Coniacian, the
2 peritidal flat facies association present in southwestern Sinai changed, in response to rising sea-
3 level, to a carbonate ramp towards North Sinai and Jordan. This predominant carbonate
4 lithofacies belt includes the Themed Formation in north Sinai, Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation in
5 Jordan and Abu Roush Formation in subsurface of the Western Desert). In north Sinai a shallow
6 subtidal lagoonal environment is characterized by an abundant macrofauna. These varied
7 lithofacies become less prominent towards the north in Jordan (Wadi El-Ghafar) and
8 Negev/Galilee, Israel (Reiss et al. 1985; Meilijson et al. 2014), where the shallow-water
9 siliciclastic lithofacies are absent, being replaced by deeper water chalks and marls with
10 abundant microplanktonic faunal assemblages. Mixed carbonate-chert-phosphorite sedimentation
11 was quickly established over a wide area during the late Campanian following a rapid relative
12 sea-level rise in the early Campanian (Pufahl et al. 2003; Abed et al. 2007; Powell and Moh’d
13 2011).
14 Sequence stratigraphic interpretation
15 The sequence stratigraphic interpretation of the Coniacian-Campanian succession in north-
16 eastern Egypt and Jordan is based on the observed microplanktonic biostratigraphy and
17 lithofacies associations, as well as the nature of the sequence boundaries that separate the latter.
18 This analysis allows a better understanding of the evolution of base-level changes during
19 Coniacian-Santonian time, and also helps to explain the significant lateral changes of lithofacies,
20 their biostratigraphical correlation and temporal relationships. The distribution of lithofacies
21 belts and their microfauna indicates the interplay between tectonic uplift (intra-plate Syrian Arc
22 deformation) and eustatic sea-level fluctuations. Four major sequence boundaries have been
23 recognised, coincident with the Turonian/Coniacian (Tu/Co1), Coniacian/Santonian (Co/Sa2)
27
1 and Santonian/Campanian (Sa/Ca3) stage boundaries, and intra-early Campanian (Ca/4). The
2 presence of these boundaries is also recognized biostratigraphically across the study area (Figs.
3 10 and 15). These correlatable surfaces define three 3rd-order depositional sequences, each
4 consisting of transgressive (TST) and highstand systems tracts (HST). HSTs are usually thicker
5 than TSTs due to increased accommodation space during the HST. These TST–HST sequences
6 are named according to their area of definition (e.g. depositional sequence Egypt and Jordan, DS
7 Eg/Jo1–3) and are described briefly below (Figs. 15 and 16). Similarly, sequence boundaries
8 (SB) are named according to their assigned stage boundaries, e.g. SB Tu/Co1, SB Co/Sa2, SB
9 Sa/Ca3, and SB Ca4).
10 Sequence boundary 1: SB Tu/Co1
11 A rapid fall in relative sea-level in late Turonian to early Coniacian time resulted in a
12 depositional hiatus during the early Coniacian, including local karstification on the carbonate
13 platform (West Bank, Israel-Palestine: Weiler and Sass 1972; Flexer et al. 1986). The
14 Turonian/Coniacian unconformity is always characterized by a sharp and well-marked change in
15 lithology, which can be easily recognized in the field (Fig. 6a), separating the upper Turonian
16 carbonate platform termed the Wata Formation (Eg/S) and the equivalent Wadi As Sir Limestone
17 Formation (Jo) from the overlying siliciclastics of the Matulla Formation (Eg/S) or the shallow
18 hemipelagic carbonate facies of Themed (Eg/S) or Wadi Umm Ghudran formations (Jo). This
19 sequence boundary in Jordan is characterized locally by highly fragmented limestone with an
20 erosion surface that marks a major change in sedimentation from the rimmed platform
21 carbonates of the Ajlun Group, below, to the predominantly hemipelagic ramp deposits above.
22 The basal part of the Mujib Chalk Member locally contains abundant detrital clasts (phosphate;
23 fish and marine reptile teeth and bone fragments), representing a condensed transgressive
28
1 sequence, following a depositional hiatus, as the rimmed carbonate shelf (Ajlun Group) was
2 flooded during a rapid sea-level rise during the Coniacian (Powell 1989; Powell and Moh’d
3 2011).
4 In addition to the regional vertical lithofacies changes, this sequence boundary is
5 supported by an absence of calcareous nannofossil Zone CC13 in the studied sections, this zone
6 marking the Turonian/Coniacian boundary according to the schemes of Sissingh (1977) and
7 Perch-Nielsen (1985). This unconformity surface has been widely recorded previously from the
8 surrounding areas such as the Negev, West Bank (Israel- Palestine), Egypt, Jordan and Iran (e.g.,
9 Weiler and Sass 1972; Reiss et al. 1985; Flexer et al. 1986; El-Azabi and El-Araby 2007; Powell
10 and Moh’d 2011, 2012; Farouk and Faris 2012; Razmjooei et al. 2014; Fig. 16). A comparison
11 with the revised eustatic charts of Haq (2014) generally shows a major fall in eustatic sea level
12 termed KTu5 that characterizes the end of the Turonian (Fig. 16). This sequence boundary (SB)
13 is correlated with SB4 of Powell and Moh’d (2011); K150 of Sharland et al. (2004), SB1 of El-
14 Azaby and El-Araby (2007) and SB Co-5 of Farouk (2015).
15 Sequence boundary 2: SB Co/Sa2
16 This sequence is characterized by vertical facies changes between the Lower Clastic Member
17 and Middle Mixed Siliciclastic-Carbonate Member of the Matulla Formation or the boundary
18 between Unit 1 and Unit 2 of the Themed Formation in Egypt. In Jordan, it occurs within the
19 Tafilah Member and coincides with vertical facies changes and absence of calcareous
20 nannofossil CC15 Zone at Karak and Wadi Mujib (Jo). Current work indicates that this
21 boundary is coincident with the Coniacian/Santonian boundary (Fig. 6C), although earlier work
22 suggested that this boundary representsthe higher Santonian/Campanian boundary (Reiss et al.
23 1985; Powell 1989; Powell and Moh’d 2011, 2012). The regional vertical facies changes are
29
1 associated with an erosional unconformity and depositional hiatus of different magnitudes at
2 various localities (Figs. 2, 8, 9 and 16). SB Co/Sa2 is recorded in different parts of Egypt
3 (Farouk and Faris 2012) and also corresponds to the revised eustatic sea-level curve KSa1 of
4 Haq (2014). This sequence boundary is correlated with SB2 or SB3 of El-Azabi and El-Araby
5 (2007) although a Coniacian-Santonian boundary age (their SB3) is preferred here for this
6 surface rather than an intra-Coniacian age as indicated by the latter authors (Fig. 15).
7
8 Sequence boundary 3: SB Sa/Ca3
9 This sequence boundary is characterized by another erosional unconformity at the
10 Santonian/Campanian boundary. The associated erosional unconformity coincides with the
11 absence of Calculites obscurus (CC17) Zone and the equivalent major part of D. asymetrica
12 planktonic foraminiferal Zone. In Jordan, it occurs at a limestone base of the Dhiban Chalk
13 Member of the Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation between the CC16/CC18 calcareous nannofossil
14 zonal boundary (Figs. 6c and 9). In Egypt, this sequence boundary represents the boundary
15 between the Middle Mixed Siliciclastic-Carbonate Member and Upper Carbonate Member of the
16 Matulla Formation. In the Ras el-Gifa section, uplift may have been greatest where the SB
17 Sa/Ca3 and SB Ca4 are amalgamated, based on the absence of the lower part of the G. elevata
18 Zone (Figs. 10, 15 and 16). This sequence boundary is correlated with Santonian/Campanian
19 unconformity in the southern Tethys (e.g., Reiss et al. 1985; Powell 1989; Powell and Moh’d
20 2011, 2012; Farouk and Faris 2012; Ahmed et al. 2014; Meilijson et al. 2014; Farouk 2015). The
21 base of the so-called 2nd Chalk Member and sequence boundary in the Negev (Israel) is also
22 taken at the Santonian/Campanian boundary (base G.elevata Zone) (Meilijson et al. 2014)
23 approximately coincident with the K160 Arabian Platform boundary of Sharland et al. (2004).
30
1 Sequence boundary 4: SB Ca4
2 This sequence boundary occurs within the Globotruncanita elevata Zone, and is easily
3 recognized by its sharp, undulating erosion surface. It separates the Wadi Umm Ghudran
4 Formation from the overlying Amman Silicified Limestone Formation in Jordan, whereas in
5 Egypt it marks the boundary between the Matulla Formation (and the equivalent Themed
6 Formation) from the overlying Sudr Chalk Formation. The Amman Silicified Limestone
7 Formation is characterized by penecontemporaneous diagenetic chert folds (Fig. 6A), possibly
8 resulting from deposition of unstable shallow-water silica (chert) sol (Steinitz 1981; Mikbel and
9 Zacher 1986; Powell and Moh’d 2011).
10 A comparison with the revised eustatic charts of Haq (2014) shows a major fall in
11 eustatic sea level towards the top of the G.elevata Zone (mid Campanian) (Fig. 15). The SB Ca4
12 boundary is marked by a regional hiatus in Egypt, Jordan, the Negev (Israel) and South Africa
13 (El-Azabi and El-Araby 2007; Ovechkina et al. 2009; Powell and Moh’d 2011 and 2012; Farouk
14 and Faris 2012; Meilijson et al. 2014; Farouk 2015). This supports the proposal of Farouk and
15 Faris (2112) that the SB Ca4 sequence boundary is synchronous with the Austin/Taylor
16 unconformity in north Texas (Gale et al. 2008), although the latter authors proposed that this
17 unconformity marks the earlier Santonian/Campanian boundary. It also correlates well with a
18 major fall in eustatic sea level (KCa3 at the 80 Ma) sequence boundary of the revised eustatic
19 chart of Haq (2014) (Fig. 15).
20 Depositional sequences
21 Depositional sequence Eg /Jo1
31
1 Depositional sequence Eg/Jo1 is of Coniacian age and comprises the Lower Clastic Member of
2 the Matulla Formation and Unit 1 of the Themed Formation in Egypt, whereas in Jordan it
3 constitutes the Mujib Chalk and Tafilah members of the Coniacian Wadi Umm Ghudran
4 Formation (Fig. 16). The sequence falls within the lower part of the planktonic foraminiferal
5 Dicarinella concavata Zone and the Micula staurophora (CC14) and Reinhardtites anthophorus
6 (CC15) calcareous nannofossil zones. This sequence is bounded at its base by SB Tu/Co1 and at
7 the top by SB Co/Sa2 (Fig. 16).
8 TST: The Transgressive systems tract (TST) consists of pelagic facies of the Mujib Chalk
9 Member in Jordan. In Egypt, it consists of shaley bioclastic packstone in the lower part of Unit 1
10 of the Themed Formation or thick-bedded glauconitic ferruginous siltstone, shale and calcareous
11 glauconitic quartz arenite deposited in a pertidal to intertidal environment in the Lower Clastic
12 Member of the Matulla Formation (Fig. 16). In the Matulla Formation, the HST consists of a
13 widely-distributed marker dolostone recorded in Sinai and the Eastern Desert (El-Azabi and El-
14 Araby 2007; Farouk 2015). In Jordan, it is characterized by carbonate-rich strata (lime-mudstone
15 to bioclastic packstone) capped by high-energy intertidal shoals in both the Themed Formation
16 and Tafilah Member of the Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation (Fig. 16).The maximum flooding
17 surface (MFS) separates the TST and HST in all the studied sections.
18 Depositional sequence Eg/Jo2
19 Depositional sequence Eg/Jo2 is of Santonian age and comprises the Middle Mixed Siliciclastic-
20 Carbonate Member of the Matulla Formation and Unit 2 of the Themed Formation in Egypt,
21 whereas in Jordan it constitutes the upper part of Tafilah Member of the Wadi Umm Ghudran
22 Formation (Figs. 6C and 16). The sequence falls within the upper part of Dicarinella asymetrica
32
1 planktonic foraminiferal Zone and the Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii (CC16) calcareous
2 nannnoplankton zones. This sequence is bounded at its base by SB Co/Sa2 and at top by SB
3 Sa/Ca3 (Fig. 16).
4 TST: The TST consists of another cycle of pelagic chalky facies of the upper Tafilah Member in
5 Jordan. In Egypt, it consists of Unit 2 of the Themed Formation and coeval shallow-marine
6 Mixed Siliciclastic-Carbonate Member of the Matulla Formation (Fig. 16). The HST is recorded
7 only in the Matulla Formation representing typical regressive facies (FT4 and FT6), separated by
8 the MFS. In other successions the HST is absent, perhaps a result of a depositional hiatus.
9 Depositional sequence Eg/Jo3
10 Depositional sequence Eg/Jo3 is of early Campanian age and comprises the Upper Carbonate
11 Member of the Matulla Formation in Egypt, whereas in Jordan it constitutes the the Dhiban
12 Chalk Member of the Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation (Figs. 9C and 16). In the Themed
13 Formation, this sequence (DS Eg/Jo3) is absent, where the sequence boundaries Sa/Ca-3 and Ca-
14 4 are amalgamated (Fig. 16). The sequence falls within the lower part of Globotruncanita elevata
15 planktonic foraminiferal Zone (as defined in this paper) and the lower part of the Broinsonia
16 parca parca (CC18) Zone. This sequence is bounded at base by SB Sa/Ca3 and at top by SB Ca4
17 (Fig. 16).
18 TST: The TST consists of pelagic facies of the Dhiban Chalk Member in Jordan. In Egypt, it
19 may be coeval with Upper Carbonate Member of the Matulla Formation. The HST is recorded
20 only in the Matulla Formation and is separated by a MFS, represented by an upward change from
21 shallow subtidal to peritidal lithofacies, the latter consisting of typical regressive lithofacies
22 facies (FT4 and FT6). In the Dhiban Chalk Member the HST is absent and the MFS is not
33
1 recognized, whereas in the Matulla Formation it consists of FT9 and FT10. The top of sequence
2 Eg/Jo3 is characterized by the prominent SB Ca4 near the base of a new major transgressive
3 phase represented by the Sudr Chalk (Eg/S) or the equivalent Amman Silicified Limestone
4 Formation (Jo).
5 Conclusions
6 Four broadly coeval rock units of Coniacian to Campanian age are recognized in the present
7 study, termed from north to south: Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation (hemipelagic chalk-chert-
8 phosphorite) and Alia Sandstone Formation in Jordan, Themed Formation in north Sinai
9 (predominantly carbonate deposits) which passes laterally to the Matulla Formation (mixed
10 siliciclastic-carbonate shelf). The Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation is assigned a Coniacian–
11 Campanian age based on the identified calcareous nannoplankton assemblages: Micula
12 staurophora (CC14), Reinhardtites anthophorus (CC15), Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii (CC16) and
13 Broinsonia parca parca (CC18). Their equivalent planktonic foraminifera zones range from
14 Dicarinella concavata, to the lower part of D. asymetrica and Globotruncanita elevata. The
15 recorded calcareous nannoplankton biozones in the Themed Formation range from CC14 to
16 CC16 indicating a Coniacian to Santonian age, whereas the siliciclastic Matulla Formation is
17 nearly barren. Discrepancies in the observed stratigraphic ranges of a number of different key
18 marker taxa that have been reported from different palaeolatitudes (e.g. Italy, America, Europe
19 and southern Tethyan sites) are confirmed in present study. These discrepancies might be
20 attributed to the absence (or poor preservation) of key taxa in some of the shallow-water
21 lithofacies in the study area relative to more complete planktonic biotas preserved in basinal
22 settings, or, perhaps, a result of provincialism of the calcareous nannoplankton and planktonic
23 foraminifera. To resolve this issue, it will be necessary to study the Upper Cretaceous microfossil
34
1 biostratigraphy in a much broader context, especially in the Middle East as outlined in this paper
2 and recent work (e.g., Meilijson et al. 2014).
3 Absence of the early Coniacian CC13 and late Santonian Calculites obscurus (CC17) zones in all
4 the studied sections indicates a major depositional hiatus at the Turonian/Coniacian, and
5 Santonian/Campanian stage boundaries, respectively, throughout the region. These hiatuses are
6 attributed to intra-plate deformation and regional tectonic uplift of the North African-Arabian
7 Plates, part of the Late Cretaceous deformation of the Syrian Arc fold belt.
8 Penecontemporaneous deformation and tilting of the depositional ramp was a major control on
9 relative sea level and sedimention (chalk-chert-phosphorite association) on the mid- to inner-
10 ramp from the Coniacian to Campanian, a period of major oceanic upwelling on the southern
11 margin of Neo-Tethys. Lithofacies vary widely in the region from end-members of
12 deeper-water pelagic chalk in the north to peritidal siliciclastics in the south. Lithofacies belts
13 and their associated biofacies were dependent on their relative palaeogeographical position on
14 the homoclinal ramp, with pelagic chalks and chalky marls, rich in calcareous nannofossils and
15 planktonic foraminifera, deposited on the outer ramp (central and north Jordan); these lithofacies
16 pass laterally to shallow-marine and peritidal siliciclastics in southeast Jordan and to the
17 southwest in Egypt/Sinai. The flux of siliciclastic sediment into the basin was probably
18 controlled by uplift of the mature Lower Palaeozoic and Lower Cretaceous sandstones of the
19 Arabian Craton located to the southeast.
20 Four regional sequence boundaries (SB), some of which can be recognized globally, are
21 marked by periods of depositional hiatus manifested at some boundaries by the absence of
22 biozones (e.g. calcareous nannofossil zones CC13 (late Turonian) and CC17 (upper Santonian-
23 earliest Campanian). Three sequence boundaries SB Tu/Co 1, SB Co/Sa 2 and SB Sa/Ca 3 are
35
1 marked by local deformation and or depositional hiatuses characterised by bioerosion of
2 hardground surfaces and/or encrusting benthic or endolithic faunas. These surfaces can be
3 correlated throughout the region irrespective of lithologies and some show good correspondence
4 with recently published Cretaceous sea-level curves. However, regional syn-tectonics (Syrian
5 Arc deformation) resulted in local/regional relative sea-level changes (eurybatic shifts) on this
6 sector of the north African-Arabian Platform.
7 Three deposition sequences (DS) have been recognized. TSTs are commonly marked by
8 detrital (locally phosphatic chalk) in Jordan (basinwards) deposited during marine flooding of the
9 pre-existing late Turonian rimmed carbonate platform (DS Eg/Jo1). HSTs are represented by
10 hemi-pelagic chalk or chalk and marl. Lowstands are recognized by local emergence or
11 bioerosion and encrustation of the sea floor and reduced sedimentation rates.
12 Acknowledgments We wish to express our gratitude to Prof. Maurice Tucker, and reviewers
13 of Facies Journal for their helful comments which significantly improved the manuscript. John
14 Powell publishes with the approval of the Executive Director, British Geological Survey
15 (NERC).
16
17 References
18 Abed AM, Arouri KH, Boreham CJ (2005) Source rock potential of phosphorite-bituminous
19 chalk-marl sequence in Jordan. Marine Petroleum Geology 22: 413-425
20 Abed, AM, Sadaqah R, Al-jazi M (2007) Sequence stratigraphy and evolution of Eshidiya
21 phosphorite platform, southern Jordan. Sediment Geol 198:209-219
36
1 Abdel Gawad G I, El Sheikh HA, Abdelhamid MA, EL Beshtawy MK, Abed M, Fürsich FT
2 (2004) Stratigraphic studies on some Upper Cretaceous succession in Sinai, Egypt. Egypt
3 J Paleontol 4: 263-303
4 Abdel-Kireem MR, Samir AM, Ibrahim MI (1995) Upper Cretaceous planktonic foraminiferal
5 zonation and correlation in the northern part of the Western Desert, Egypt. N Jb Geol
6 Paläont Abh198: 329–361
7 Ahmad, F, Farouk, S, Abdel Moghny, MW (2014) A regional stratigraphic correlation for the
8 upper Campanian phosphorites and associated rocks in Egypt and Jordan. P Geologists'
9 Assoc 125: 419-431
10 Almogi-Labin A, Bein A, Sass E (1993) Late Cretaceous upwelling system along the southern
11 Tethys margin (Israel): Interrelationship between productivity, bottom water
12 environments, and organic matter preservation. Paleoceonography 8: 671-690
13 Al-Rifaiy, IA, Cherif OH, El-Bakri BA (1993) Upper Cretaceous foraminiferal biostratigraphy
14 and paleobathymetry of the Al-Baqa area, North of Amman (Jordan). J Afri Earth Sci
15 7:343–357
16 Ardestani, SM, Vahidinia, M, Sadeghi, A, Arz, JA, Dochev D (2012) Integrated biostratigraphy
17 of the Upper Cretaceous Abderaz Formation of the East Kopet Dagh Basin (NE Iran).
18 Geol Balcanica 40 (1–3): 21–37
19 Attia, SH, Ismail, AA, Shabana, AR, Ismail, AA 2013 Contribution to the stratigraphy and
20 sedimentation of the Cretaceous aquifers, SE Sinai, Egypt. Micropaleontology, 59: 177-
21 200
37
1 Bachmann, M, Hirsch, F (2006) Lower Cretaceous carbonate platform of the eastern Levant
2 (Galilee and the Golan Heights): stratigraphy and second-order sea-level change. Cret
3 Res 27: 487-512
4 Bauer J, Kuss J, Steuber T (2002) Platform environments, microfacies and systems tracts of the
5 upper Cenomanian-lower Santonian of Sinai, Egypt. Facies 47: 1–26.
6 Bauer, J, Kuss J, Steuber T (2003) Sequence architecture and carbonate platform configuration
7 (Late Cenomanian-Santonian), Sinai, Egypt. Sedimentology 50/3: 387–414.
8 Bowen R, Jux, U (1987) Afro-Arabian geology. Chapman and Hall, London, 295p
9 Bralower TJ, Leckie RM, Sliter WV, Thierstein, H.R (1995) An integrated Cretaceous
10 microfossil biostratigraphy. In: Berggren, WA, Kent, DV, Aubry, M-P, Hardenbol J
11 (Eds.), Geochronology, Time Scales and Global Stratigraphic Correlation. SEPM Spec
12 Publ 54:65-79
13 Bramlette MN, Sullivan FR (1961) Coccolithophorids and related nannoplankton of the Early
14 Tertiary in California. Micropaleontology 7: 129-174
15 Burnett J A (with contribution from Gallagher L T, Hampton M J) (1998) Upper Cretaceous. In:
16 Bown PR (ed) Calcareous Nannofossil Biostratigraphy, British Micropalaeontological
17 Society Publication Series. London: Chapman and Hall/Kluwer Academic Publishers:
18 132-199
19 Caron M (1985) Cretaceous planktic foraminifera. In: Bolli, H.M., Saunders, J.B., Perch-
20 Nielsen, K., (eds.), Plankton Stratigraphy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 17-
21 86
38
1 Chèrif OH, Al-Rifaiy IA, Al-Afifi FI, Orabi OH (1989) Planktonic foraminifera and
2 chronostratigraphy of Senonian exposures in west-central Sinai, Egypt. Revue de
3 Micropaléontol 32: 167–184
4 Cherif OH, Ismail AA (1991) Late Senonian-Tertiary planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy
5 and tectonism of the Esh-el-Mallaha and Gharamul areas, Egypt. Middle East Research
6 Center, Ain Shams University, E Sci Ser: 5: 146-159.
7 Coccioni R, Premoli Silva I (2015). Revised Upper Albian – Maastrichtian planktonic
8 foraminiferal biostratigraphy and magneto-stratigraphy of the classical Tethyan Gubbio
9 section (Italy). Newsl Stratigr 48: 47-90
10 Dunham RJ (1962) Classification of Carbonate Rocks According to Depositional Texture. In:
11 Hamm WE, (ed.), Classification of Carbonate Rocks. Am Assoc Petrol Mem: 108-121
12 Elamri Z, Farouk S, Zaghbib-Turki D (2014). Santonian planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy
13 of the northern Tunisia. Geologia Croatica 65/2:111-126.
14 El-Azabi MH, El-Araby A (2007). Depositional framework and sequence stratigraphic aspects of
15 the Coniacian–Santonian mixed siliciclastic/carbonate Matulla sediments in Nezzazat and
16 Ekma blocks, Gulf of Suez, Egypt. J Afr Earth Sci 47: 179–202
17 Embry AF, Klovan JE (1972) A late Devonian reef on North Easter Banks Island, northwest
18 territories. Bul Can Petrol Gect 19: 730-781
19 Farouk S, Faris M (2012). Late Cretaceous Calcareous nannofossil and planktonic Foraminiferal
20 bioevents of the shallow-marine Carbonate Platform in the Mitla Pass, west central Sinai,
21 Egypt. Cret Res 33: 50-65
22 Farouk S (2014) Maastrichtian carbon cycle changes and planktonic foraminiferal bioevents at
23 Gebel Matulla, west-central Sinai, Egypt. Cret Res 50: 238–251
39
1 Farouk S (2015) Upper Cretaceous sequence stratigraphy of the Galala Plateaux, western side of
2 the Gulf of Suez, Egypt. MarPetrol Geology 60: 136-158
3 Fink J H, Reches Z (1983) Diagenetic density inversions and the deformation of shallow marine
4 chert in Israel. Sedimentology 30: 261-271.
5 Flexer A, Rosenfield A, Lipson-Benitah S, Honigstein A (1986) Relative sea level changes
6 during the Cretaceous in Israel. Am Assoc Petrol Geol Bull 70: 1685-1699
7 8 Flügel E (2004) Microfacies of Carbonate Rocks: Analysis, Interpretation and Application;
9 Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 976p.
10 Freund RZ, Garfunkel Z, Zak I, Goldberg M, Weissbrod T, Derin B (1970). The shear along the
11 Dead Sea rift. Phil Trans Royal Soc London 267A, p.107-130
12 Gale AS, Hancock JM, Kennedy WJ, Petrizzo MR, Lees JA, Walaszczyk I, Wray DS (2008)
13 Geochemistry, stable oxygen and carbon isotopes, nannofossils, planktonic foraminifera,
14 inoceramid bivalves, ammonites and crinoids of the Waxahachie Dam Spillway section,
15 north Texas: a possible boundary stratotype for the base of the Campanian Stage. Cret
16 Res29:131–167.
17 Ghorab MA, (1961) Abnormal stratigraphic features in Ras Gharib oil field. In: 3rd Arab
18 Petroleum Congress, Alexandria, Egypt:10 pp.
19 Glenn CR, Arthur MA (1990) Anatomy and origin of a Cretaceous phosphorite-green sand giant,
20 Egypt. Sedimentology 37: 123–148
21 Gradstein F M, Ogg J G, Schmitz M D, Ogg GM (2012). The Geologic Time-scale, First ed.
22 Elsevier: 1176 pp.
23 Gruszczyňski M, Coleman M L, Marcinowski R, Walaszczyk I, Isaacs MCP (2002)
24 Palaeoenvironmental conditions of hardgrounds formations in the Late Turonian-
40
1 Coniacian of Mangyshlak Mountains, Western Kazakhstan. Acta Geol. Pol. 52 (4): 423–
2 435
3 Gvirtzman Z, Almogi-Labin A, Moshkovitz S, Lewy Z (1989) Upper Cretaceous high-resolution
4 multiple stratigraphy, northern margin of the Arabian platform, central Israel. Cret Res
5 10: 107-135
6 Haq, BU (2014) Cretaceous eustasy revisited. Global and Planetary Change 113: 44–58
7 Haq BU, Al-Qahtani AM (2005) Phanerozoic cycles of sea-level change on the Arabian
8 Platform. GeoArabia 10:127-160
9 Hardenbol J, Thierry J, Farley MB, Jacquin T, de Graciansky PC,Vail PR (1998) Mesozoic and
10 Cenozoic sequence chronostratigraphic framework of European basins. In: de Graciansky
11 P C, Hardenbol J, Jacquin T, Vail PR (eds.): Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence
12 stratigraphy of European Basins.SEPM Spec Publ 60: 3-13
13 Hay WW (1965) Calcareous nannofossils. In: Kummel B, Raup, D, (eds.) Handbook of
14 paleontological techniques. Freeman, W.H., San Francisco, California, pp. 3-6.
15 Hermina M (1990) The surroundings of Kharga, Dakhla and Farafra oases. In: Said, R., (ed) The
16 geology of Egypt. Balkema, Rotterdam/Brookfield pp. 259–292
17 Honigstein A, Almogi-Labin A, Rosenfeld A (1987) Combined ostracod and planktonic
18 foraminiferal biozonation of the Late Coniacian-Earl Maastrichtian in Israel. Jl
19 Micropalaeont 6:41-60.
20 Ismail AA, (2012) Late Cretaceous-Early Eocene benthic foraminifera from Esh El Mallaha area,
21 Egypt. Rev Paléobiologie, Genève 31 (1): 15-50
22 Issawi B, Francis MH, Youssef EAA, Osman RA (2009) The Phanerozoic Geology of Egypt. In:
23 Special Publication 81. The Egyptian Mineral Resource Authority. 589pp.Khalil H,
41
1 Zahran E (2014) Calcareous Nannofossil Biostratigraphy and Stage Boundaries of the
2 Santonian-Eocene Successions in Wadi El Mizeira Northeastern Sinai, Egypt. Inter
3 JGeosc 5: 432-449
4 KochW (1968) Zurmikropaläontologie und biostratigraphie der Oberkreide und des Alttertiärs
5 von Jordanien. Geol JBeihefte 85: 627-659
6 Kora M, Genedi A (1995). Lithostratigraphy and facies developmentof the Upper Cretaceous
7 carbonates in east central Sinai, Egypt. Facies 32:223–236.
8 Kostic B, Aigner T (2004) Sedimentary and poroperm anatomy of shallow-water carbonates
9 (Muschelkalk, South-German Basin): an outcrop analogue study of inter-well spacing
10 scale. Facies 50: 113–131
11 Krenkel E (1924) Der Syriasche Bogen. Zen fur Mineral Geolog Palaontol 9: 274–281 (10: 301–
12 313)
13 Kuss J (1986) Facies development of Upper Cretaceous-Lower Tertiary sediments of Monastery
14 of St. Anthony, Eastern Desert, Egypt. Facies 15: 177–194
15 Kuss J, Christian Scheibner C, and Gietl R (2000) Carbonate Platform to Basin Transition along
16 an Upper Cretaceous to Lower Tertiary Syrian Arc Uplift, Galala Plateau, Eastern Desert
17 of Egypt. GeoArabia 5(3): 405-424.
18 La Maskin TA, Elrick M (1997) Sequence stratigraphy of the Middle to Upper Guilmette
19 Formation, Southern Egan and Schell Creek Ranges, Nevada. In: Klapper G, Murphy,
20 MA, Talent JA (eds.) Palaeozoic sequence stratigraphy, Biostratigraphy and
21 Biogeography: Studies in Honor of J. Granville (ess) Johnson. Geol Soc Am Spec Paper
22 321: 89-112
42
1 Lamolda MA, Paul CRC, Peryt D, Pons JM (2014) The Global Bounadry Stratotype and Section
2 Point (GSSP) for the base of the Santonian Stage, "Cantera de Margas", Olazagutia,
3 northern Spain. Episodes: 37, 2-13
4 Lewy Z (1990) Transgressions, regressions and relative sea-level changes on the Cretaceous
5 shelf of Israel and adjacent countries. A critical evaluation of Cretaceous global sea-level
6 correlations. Paleoceanography 5:619-637
7 Lüning S, Kuss J, Bachmann M, Marzouk AM, Morsi AM (1998a) Sedimentary response to
8 basin inversion: Mid Cretaceous Early Tertiary pre- to syndeformational deposition at the
9 Arief El Naqa anticline (northern Sinai, Egypt). Facies 38: 103–136
10 Lüning S, Marzouk AM, Morsi A M, Kuss J (1998b) Sequence stratigraphy of the Upper
11 Cretaceous of central-east Sinai, Egypt. Cret Res 19:153-196
12 Makhlouf, IM, Tarawneh K, Moumani K, Ibrahim K M (2015) Recognition of quartz geodes in
13 the Upper Cretaceous Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation, Ras En Naqab, South Jordan.
14 Arab J Geosci. 8: 1535-1547
15 McRae SG (1972). Glauconite. Earth Science Review 8:397–440
16 Meilijson A, Ashckenazi-Polivoda S, Ron-Yankovich L, Illner P, Alsenz H, Speijer R, Almogi-
17 Labin A, Feinstein S, Berner Z, Püttmann W, Abramovich S (2014) Chronostratigraphy
18 of the Upper Cretaceous high productivity sequence of the southern Tethys, Israel. Cret
19 Res 50: 187-213
20 Mikbel S, Zacher W (1986) Fold structures in northern Jordan. N Jb Geol Paläont Mh 4: 248-
21 256
43
1 Moh’d BK (2000) The Geology of Irbid and Ash Shuna Ash Shamaliyya (Waqqas) map sheets
2 no. 3154-II and 3154-III. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Natural Resources
3 Authority Bulletin 46, 63 (Amman)
4 Mustafa H (2000) Fish teeth from the Upper Umm Ghudran Formation (late Santonian) of NW-
5 Jordan. N J Geol Paläont Mh10: 595-612
6 Mustafa H, Case G, Zalmout I (2002) A new selachian fauna from the Wadi Umm Ghudran
7 Formation (Late Cretaceous)- Central Jordan. N Jb Geol Paläont Mh 226: 419-444.
8 Nederbragt AJ (1991) Late Cretaceous biostratigraphy and development of Heterohalicidae
9 (planktic foraminifera): In: Biostratigraphy and paleoceanographic potential of
10 Cretaceous planktic foraminifera Heterohelicidae– Centrale Huisdruk Kerj Vrije
11 Uni ver siteit Amesterdam Academisch Proefschrift:, 61–125
12 13 Obaidalla NA, Kassab AS (2002) Integrated biostratigraphy of the Coniacian – Santonian
14 sequence, southwestern Sinai, Egypt. Egypt J Paleont 2: 85-104
15 Ovechkina MN, Watkeys M, Mostovski MB (2009) Calcareous nannofossils from the stratotype
16 section of the Mzamba Formation, Eastern Cape, South Africa. Palaeontol Afri 44: 129–
17 133
18 Palma RM, Lazo DG, Piethé RD (2005) Facies de tormenta y trazas fósiles en la rampa media de
19 la Formación La Manga, Bardas Blancas, Mendoza. Actas XVI Congreso Geológico
20 Argentino, La Plata 3: 155-156
21 Parker DH (ed) (1970) The hydrogeology of the Mesozoic-Cainozoic aquifers of the western
22 highlands and plateau of East Jordan. Investigation of the aquifers of east Jordan, Report
23 of United Nations Development Project/Food and Agriculture Organization Project 212,
24 Technical Report No. 2.Unpublished, Rome, 424 pp.
44
1 Perch-Nielsen, K (1985) Mesozoic Calcareous Nannofossils. In: Bolli HM, Saunders JB, Perch-
2 Nielsen K (eds.), Plankton Stratigraphy, Cambridge Earth Sciences Series, Cambridge
3 University Press, p.329–426
4 Petrizzo MR (2000) Upper Turonian-lower Campanian planktonic foraminifera from southern
5 mid-high latitudes (Exmouth Plateau, NW Australia): biostratigraphy and taxonomic
6 notes. Cret Res 21: 479–505.
7 Petrizzo MR (2002) Palaeoceanographic and palaeoclimatic inferences from Late Cretaceous
8 planktonic foraminiferal assemblages from the Exmouth Plateau (ODP Sites 762 and 763,
9 eastern Indian Ocean). Mar Micropaleontol 45: 117–150
10 Pettijohn FJ, Potter PE, Siever R (1987) Sand and Sandstones. Springer, New York, 553pp
11 Powell JH (1988) The geology of Karak. Map sheet No. 3152 III, NRA Geol Bull 8: pp 172.
12 Amman
13 Powell JH (1989) Stratigraphy and Sedimentation of the Phanerozoic Rocks in Central and South
14 Jordan - Part B: Kurnub, Ajlun and Belqa Groups. Geological Bulletin, No. 11.The
15 Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, NRA Geol
16 Bull, Amman, 130 pp
17 Powell JH, Moh’d BK (2011) Evolution of Cretaceous to Eocene alluvial and carbonate platform
18 sequences in central and south Jordan. GeoArabia 16/4: 29–82
19 Powell JH, Moh’d, B K (2012) Early diagenesis of Late Cretaceous chalk-chert-phosphorite
20 hardgrounds in Jordan: Implications for sedimentation on a Coniacian–Campanian
21 pelagic ramp. GeoArabia 17/ 4: 17-38
22 Powell JH, Abed AM, Le Nindre Y-M (2014) Cambrian stratigraphy of Jordan. GeoArabia19:
23 81-134
45
1 Powers RW, Ramirez LF, Redmond CD, Elberg EL Jr (1966) Geology of the Arabian Peninsula:
2 sedimentary geology of Saudi Arabia, US Geol Surv Prof Paper 560-D, 147 p
3 Premoli Silva I, Sliter WV (1995) Cretaceous planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy and
4 evolutionary trends from the Bottaccione section, Gubbio, Italy. Palaeontogr Ital 82: 1–89
5 Premoli Silva I, Sliter W V (1999) Cretaceous paleoceanography: Evidence from planktonic
6 foraminiferal evolution. Geol Soc America, Special Paper 332: 301–328
7 Pufahl PK, Grimm, KU, Abed AM, Sadaqah RMY (2003) Upper Cretaceous (Campanian)
8 phosphorites in Jordan: implications for the formation of a southern Tethyan phosphorite
9 giant. Sed Geol 161:175-205.
10 Razmjooei MJ, Thibault N, Kani1 A, Mahanipour A, Boussaha M, Korte C (2014) Coniacian–
11 Maastrichtian calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy and carbon-isotope stratigraphy in
12 the Zagros Basin (Iran): consequences for the correlation of Late Cretaceous Stage
13 Boundaries between the Tethyan and Boreal realms. Newsl Stratigr 47/2: 183–209
14 Reiss Z, Almogi-Labin A, Honigstein A, Lewy Z, Lipson-Benitah S, Moshkovitz S, Zaks Y
15 (1985) Late Cretaceous multiple stratigraphic framework of Israel. Israel J Earth Sci
16 34:147–166
17 Robaszynski F, Caron M, Dupuis C, Amedro F, González-Donoso JM, Linares D, Hardenbol J,
18 Gartner S, Calandra F, Deloffre R (1990) A tentative integrated stratigraphy in the
19 Turonian of Central Tunisia: Formations, zones and sequential stratigraphy in the Kalaat
20 Senan area. Bulletin des Centres de Recherches Exploration-Production Elf-Aquitaine 14:
21 213–384
22 Robaszynski F González-Donoso JM, Linares D, Amédro F, Caron M, Dupuis C, Dhondt AV,
23 Gartner S (2000) Le Crétacé Supérieur de la région de Kalaat Senan, Tunisie centrale.
46
1 Litho-Biostratigraphy intégrée: zones d’ammonites, de foraminifères planctoniques et de
2 nannofossiles du Turonien supérieur au Maastrichtien. Bulletin du Centre de Recherches,
3 Exploration-Production Elf Aquitaine 22: 359–490
4 Samuel M, Ishmail A, Akarish A, Zaky A (2009) Upper Cretaceous stratigraphy of the Gebel
5 Somar area, north-central Sinai, Egypt. Cret Res 30: 22-34
6 Sari B (2006) Upper Cretaceous planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy of the Bey Daĝlari
7 Autochthon in the Korkuteli area, Western Taurides, Turkey. J Foramin Res 36 (3): 241–
8 261
9 Shahar J (1994) The Syrian Arc system: an overview. Palaeogeogr, Palaeoclimatol, Palaeoecol
10 112: 125–142
11 Shahin A, Kora M (1991) Biostratigraphy of some Upper Cretaceous successions in the Eastern
12 Central Sinai, Egypt. N Jb Geol Paläont Mh 11: 671-692
13 Sharland PR, Archer R, Casey, DM, Davies, RB, Hall, SH, Heward, AP, Horbury A D, Simmons
14 MD (2001) Arabian plate sequence stratigraphy. GeoArabia, Spec Publ 2:371 pp.
15 Sharland PR, Casey DM, Davies RB, Simmons, MD, Sutcliffe, OE (2004) Arabian Plate
16 Sequence Stratigraphy–revisions to SP2. GeoArabia 9/1: 199-214
17 Sissingh W (1977) Biostratigraphy of Cretaceous calcareous nannoplankton .Geol. Mijnbouw
18 56: 37-65
19 Soudry D, Nathan Y, Roded R (1985) Ashosh-Haroz facies and their significance for the
20 Mishash Formation paleogeography and phosphorite accumulation in the northern and
21 central Negev, southern Israel. Israel Jn Earth Sci 56: 429–441
47
1 Stampfli G M, Borel G D (2002) A plate tectonic model for the Paleozoic and Mesozoic
2 constrained by dynamic plate boundaries and restored synthetic oceanic isochrons: Earth
3 Planet Sci Lett 196: 17–33
4 Steinitz G (1981) Enigmatic Chert Structures in the Senonian Cherts of Israel. Geol. Surv. Isr.
5 Bull. 75:1-46.
6 Soudry D, Glenn CR, Nathan Y, Segal I, Vonder Haar D (2006) Evolution of Tethyan
7 phosphogenesis along the northern edges of the Arabian-African shield during the
8 Cretaceous-Eocene as deduced from temporal variations of Ca and Nd isotopes and rates
9 of P accumulation. Earth-Sci Rev 78: 27-57
10 Tucker ME, Wright V P (1990) Carbonate Sedimentology: Oxford: Blackwell Scientific
11 Publications, 482 p.
12 Voigt S, Gale AS, Jung C, Jenkyns HC (2012) Global correlation of Upper Campanian–
13 Maastrichtian successions using carbon-isotope stratigraphy: development of a new
14 Maastrichtian timescale. Newsl Stratigr 45:25–53
15 Walaszczyk I, Wood CJ, Lees JA, Peryt D, Voigt S, Wiese F (2010) The Salzgitter-Salder
16 Quarry (Lower Saxony, Germany) and Słupia Nadbrżezna river cliff section (central
17 Poland): a proposed candidate composite Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point
18 for the base of the Coniacian Stage (Upper Cretaceous). Acta Geol Pol 60: 445-477
19 Wanas HA (2008) Cenomanian rocks in the Sinai Peninsula, northeast Egypt: facies analysis and
20 sequence stratigraphy. J Afr Earth Sci 52: 125–138
21 Warren J (2000) Dolomite: occurrence, evolution and economically important associations.
22 Earth-Sci Rev 52: 1–81
48
1 Weiler Y, Sass E (1972) Karstic sandstone bodies in the Turonian limestones of Judea, Israel.
2 Sediment Geol 7(2): 137-152
3 4 Wilson JL (1975) Carbonate Facies in Geological History. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. p. 471
5 Ziko A, Darwish M, Eweda S (1993). Late Cretaceous- Early Tertiary stratigraphy of the
6 Themed area, East Central Sinai, Egypt. N Jb GeolPaläont Mh 13: 135-149
7
8 Figure caption
9 Fig. 1. Landsat image showing the location of the studied sections (Gebel Qabaliat, Gebel
10 Nazazat, Ras el-Gifa sections in northeast Egypt; Karak, Wadi Mujib, and Wadi El-
11 Ghafar in Jordan; source from Google Earth).
12 Fig. 2. Upper Cretaceous lithostratigraphical nomenclature, from south to north, in Egypt, Israel
13 and Jordan
14 Fig. 3. Legend for figures in this paper
15 Fig. 4. Lithostratigraphical log of the Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation at three sections in Jordan
16 (Karak, Wadi Mujib, and Wadi El-Ghafar) showing the biozones, facies associations,
17 lateral and vertical facies, thickness variations and sequence stratigraphical interpretation
18 (horizontal distance not to scale). Red lines represent the boundaries between the Mujib
19 Chalk, Tafilah and Dhiban Chalk members. See Fig. 3 for legend and Table 1 for
20 abbreviations of the microfacies.
21 Fig. 5. Lithostratigraphical log of the Matulla Formation (Gebel Qabaliat, Gebel Nazazat) and
22 the equivalent Themed Formation (at Ras el-Gifa towards the north) in Egypt (Sinai)
49
1 showing the biozones, facies associations, lateral and vertical facies, thickness variations
2 and sequence stratigraphic interpretation (horizontal distance not to scale). See Fig. 3 for
3 legend and Table 1 for abbreviations of the microfacies.
4 Fig. 6A. General view of the exposed Upper Cretaceous succession at Wadi Mujib (south flank)
5 showing the Naur Limestone, Fuheis, Hummar, Shueib, Wadi As Sir, Wadi Umm
6 Ghudran, and Amman Silicified Limestone formations; the red lines indicate their
7 boundaries; view to the southwest. (Field photograph: S. Farouk).
8 Fig. 6B. General view of the exposed Upper Cretaceous succession at Gebel Nazazat showing
9 the Raha, Wata, Matulla, and Sudr Chalk formations; the red lines indicate their
10 boundraies; view to north-west. Red dashed line separates the Lower Clastic Member
11 from the overlying Middle Mixed Siliciclastic-Carbonate Member (Field photograph: S.
12 Farouk).
13 Fig. 6C. The Tafilah Member unconformably underlies the Dhiban Chalk Member followed
14 above unconformably by the Amman Silicified Limestone Formation with an irregular
15 boundary; the red lines indicate their boundaries view to northwest. Car for scale ca. 1.5
16 m high (Field photograph: S. Farouk).
17 Fig.7. Coniacian to Campanian planktonic foraminiferal and calcareous nannofossil
18 biostratigraphy of the studied sections compared to previous standard biostratigraphical
19 schemes (Sissingh 1977; Perch-Nilsen 1985; Burnett 1998; Robaszynski et al. 2000) with
20 stage boundaries of Gradstein et al. (2012).
21 Fig. 8. Distribution chart of the most important identified calcareous nannofossil and planktonic
22 foraminiferal assemblages in the present study.
50
1 Fig. 9. Correlation chart showing the distribution of different hiatuses against the time-scale and
2 standard zonation, with age of zonal boundaries according to the Gradstein et al. (2012)
3 and Haq (2014) charts.
4 Fig. 10.
5 1- Quadrum gartneri Prins and Perch-Nielsen in Manivit et al. 1977, Wadi El-Ghafar section,
6 Zone CC16.
7 2 -3- Reinhardtites levis Prins and Sissingh in Sissingh (1977), Karak section, Zone CC18.
8 4- Broinsonia parca constricta Hattner et al., 1980, Wadi Mujib section, Zone CC18.
9 5- Prediscosphaera spinosa (Bramlette & Marlini 1964) Gartner (1968), Ras el-Gifa section,
10 Zone CC16.
11 6-Arkhnangelskiella cymbiformis Vekshina, Ras el-Gifa section, Zone CC18.
12 7- 8- Eiffellithus eximius (Stover 1966) Perch-Nielsen (1968), Wadi El-Ghafar section, Zone
13 CC15.
14 9- Eiffellithus turriseiffelii (Deflandre in Deflandre & Fert 1954) Reinhardt 1965, Ras el-Gifa
15 section, Zone CC15.
16 10- Microrhabdulus decoratus Deflandre (1959), Wadi Karak section, Zone CC16.
17 11- Lucianorhabdus cayeuxii Dellandre (1959), Mujib section, Zone CC15.
18 12- Retecapsa crenulata (Bramlette & Martini 1964) Grün in Grün and Allemann 1975, Wadi
19 Karak section, Zone CC16.
20 13-16- Watznaueria barnesae (Black in Black & Barnes 1959) Perch-Nielsen (1968), Wadi
21 Mujib section, Zone CC18.
22 Fig. 11
23 1-4: Heterohelix globulosa (Eherenbeg 1840), Wadi El-Ghafar section, Dicarinella asymetrica
51
1 Zone.
2 5: Costellagerina bulbosa (Belford 1960), Ras el-Gifa section, Dicarinella asymetrica Zone.
3 6: Costellagerina cf. pilula (Belford 1960), Wadi El-Ghafar section, Dicarinella asymetrica
4 Zone.
5 7-9: Dicarinella asymetrica (Sigal 1952), Wadi El-Ghafar section, Globotruncanita elevata
6 Zone.
7 10-11: Dicarinella sp., Ras el-Gifa section, Dicarinella asymetrica Zone.
8 12-13: Marginotruncana sinuosa Porthault 1970, Wadi El-Ghafar section, Globotruncanita
9 elevata Zone.
10 14-15: Globotruncana arca (Cushman 1926), Wadi El-Ghafar section, Globotruncanita elevata
11 Zone.
12 16-17: Globotruncana bulloides Vogler 1941, Wadi El-Ghafar section, Globotruncanita elevata
13 Zone.
14 18: Globotruncana linneiana (D’orbigny 1839), Wadi El-Ghafar section, Globotruncanita
15 elevata Zone.
16 Fig. 12: Microfacies of Coniacian-Santonian successions in northeast Egypt and Jordan. Scale
17 bar = 200 µm. A) FT2, calcareous glauconitic quartz arenite; sample 32, Gebel Qabaliat
18 section. B) FT3, quartz arenite; sample 41, Gebel Qabaliat section. C) FT4, sandy
19 evaporitic recrystallized lime-mudstone; sample 41, Gebel Qabaliat section. D) FT5,
20 ferruginous sandy dolomicrite; sample 79 section, Gebel Nazazat section. E) FT9,
21 recrystallized sandy dolomicrite; sample 50, Gebel Qabaliat section. F) FT10, phosphatic
22 glauconitic sandy lime-mudstone; sample 49, Gebel Qabaliat section. G) FT11, Serpulid
23 bioclastic wacke/packstone; sample 48, Gebel Qabaliat section. H) FT12, Well-bedded
52
1 chert interbedded with limestone; sample 84, Mujib section. I) FT13, onco-ooidal-
2 packstone; sample 19, Ras el-Gifa section
3 Fig. 13: Microfacies of Coniacian-Santonian successions in northeast Egypt and Jordan. Scale
4 bar = 200 µm. A) FT14, glauconitic peloidal packstone; sample 23, Ras el-Gifa section.
5 B) FT18, bioclastic packstone; sample 10, Ras el-Gifa section. C) FT21, oncoidal
6 bioclastic wacke/packstone; sample 21, Ras el-Gifa section. D) FT22, glauconitic sandy
7 bioclastic wackestone; sample 45, Gebel Qabaliat section. E) FT23, oyster glauconitic
8 floatstone; sample 47, Gebel Qabaliat section. F & G) FT24, bio – intraclastic sandy
9 packstone; sample 141, Karak section. H & I) FT26, planktonic foraminiferal
10 wackestone; the rock contains sponge spicules with some yellow silicification of
11 glauconite, sample 33, Wadi El-Ghafar section.
12 Fig. 14. Block diagram showing the distribution of the sedimentary lithofacies for the Coniacian
13 - Santonian succession in the study area, from south to north. See Fig. 3 for legend.
14 Fig. 15. Correlation of sequence boundaries in different regions of the Arabian platform, Egypt
15 and Jordan, and the revised eustatic Cretaceous sea-level changes of Haq (2014);
16 timescale after Gradstein et al. (2012).
17 Fig. 16. Correlation chart of the Coniacian-Santonian sequences showing the facies associations,
18 and sequence stratigraphic interpretation in the studied sections (horizontal distance not
19 to scale). See Fig. 3 for legend.
20 Table 1 Facies types recognized in the present study.
21
53
o o o o o o o 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 Syria N Mediterranean Sea Iraq West El-Ghafar Bank Jerusalem a e
s Jordan
Gaza d a e Mujib Negev D o Israel Karak 31 Ras el-Gifa
Sinai Taba z
e G. Nazazat a
u b
S a o
f q o G. 29
A S a u d i A r a b i a f f
l Qabaliat o u
f E g y p t G l
u
G
0 300km Red o Sea 27
Fig. 1 JORDAN PALESTINE- ISRAEL EGYPT Age (Powell, 1989; Powell and Moh’d, 2012; (Soudry et al., 1985; Reiss et al., (Hermina, 1990; Farouk, 2015; the present study) 1985; Meilijson et al., 2014) the present study) k n l e l y a a n i a n n t h o h o o i h i t C h . t S t
c Muwaqqar Chalk Ghareb Formation a i a n n m a r l m a t
Formation (part) m F A r h r s . m o k t o a o F a F S a h D n M K o i t a . . m m r m F o F n F h i
Al Hisa Phosphorite Phosphorite Series f o . i k w u t l f P u m
r Formation Member a a P H e F U D h - m l U t p r C O n E e p o O r a R i F U R m d l G n u h G e a s S S h p A a T U h Q l m n P s L e i a Amman Silicified o i Chert Member O b t E C
M Quseir Fm. e a C
B Limestone Formation S G m r T o r F N e U w m O i Upper
o Dhiban Chalk t 2nd Chalk Member i n M L n Carbonate Mb. e .
Member o a i Z r t . m d a ? n F m i u n m F e h E
r Middle Mixed o . n i o a G t
l Siliclastic- o l m F t Santonian a Chert Marly u
Carbonate Mb. F s m t m a d Member r a d m Tafilah h n o e M U u a F
i Member n m S d e Lower e a a h i
M 1st Chalk Member l
Clastic T
W Mujib Chalk Coniacian A Member Mb. Zihor Fm. P P A N U U E U O O Wadi As Sir Limestone Formation D Turonian L Gerofit Nezer R R
J Bina Fm. U Fm. Fm. Wata Fm. Taref Fm. J G G A
Fig. 2 chalky ~ argillaceous sequence limestone limestone SB Co/Sa2 ~ limestone boundary bedded chert nodular nodular intercalated marl limestone with Limestone chert unconformity shale sandy shale sandstone u surface
transgressive highstand maximum HST MFS glauconitic TST systems tract systems tract flooding surface
burrow o benthic o planktonic gastropods o structure foraminifera oo foraminifera
echinoids bivalves ooids . oncoid
cl clay si silt rs rudstone g granular
fs fine sand ms medium sand cs coarse sand gr grainstone
m mudstone w wackestone fl floatstone p packstone
Fig. 3 Mujib (2) s s . s s t n o
i Clastic s e e o n s n s n n i t m e t u e
o cl si fs ms cs g o c i l
e North z z a t c a k p i . . s c r a c F t m N y o o . . F
a Carbonate S s R P C S p gr s
m w fl rs a `
d Wadi El-Ghafar (1) l e a Karak (3) i f d e i i n t c n i b e l o s u i r s t 107 t s r s e S s s . c e DL s s a s . t
n Clastic s i o e c s
i Clastic w s a e e n n o T e t B r s e o o n n r s l i n n n a i n o m S s l e n s t n i cl si fs ms cs g a e i t u e
o cl si fs ms cs g o t n a T m o i e l e t e o L m z z g h s c a l i u e z d c z k p i a . S . t u a c p . a i c . m a c k m s n F t r a m N c o F q c N o . e A t m . F Carbonate y . a Carbonate u o . t F s o S R a P e C S s S s s P C o S R p gr m w fl p gr rs s y a S m w fl rs u a b S
l 100 . a 34 158 f o FP a
FP d l t L i t n . t
e ~ w a b a o S k o a h u t
a 33 l l o oo . 157 LM v s l t i T a s oo a a
e 96 8 A p a S l h h FW v e n 1 8 T e ~ S v e 8 e C l 156 e 32 d 1 l e C 1 a . l d k u n o o l o oo e oo C oo a C G C
Ca-4 e a d p T 155 . i
b ~
h 95 C . e i C T S l f
o G C oo h l M T d G
154 S e m DS Eg/Jo3
n FW o d D
oo . 31 T i h
a 153 T s o a ~ oo b o M S i
152 m ooo oo T h
151 F
C u
D 92
u f u a n l Sa/Ca-3 150 f 30 l c a 91 e i e
r FL r a
h ~ h t
149 d c a s s s n FP 6 i e 89 u 29 c e 6 r r 1 e i i a t l h m r 148 e FLM 1 i T c C e t d y 6 G n a DS Eg/Jo2 S ~
e o d C C s 1 n oo f m i n T I
147 a y m m C 28 C c o m . i s y ~ t C m
o 87 g D a 146 s T t u a U n . a S
FW l r T i . T D e e a FW 145 s o S d t oo D n P i 27 T ~ a S n s I W 144 o u p u ooo . . . . e T
Co/Sa-2 l . . . . OBG d 26
143 a S o a p
o oo t H h a
85 m v BLG S 142 a n 5
r 25 a e 1 c r 141 o r m C n oo r a . o C
140 o B c f m 24 FL t . F a l 139 BISP D n p
a CH & CDL 138 n r e T e t d
r 23 h S a r u 137 a H l n a h i 84 f o B G a
136 b r T a m 83
135 c m l U 134 a i
d o o o o i
d o 33 35 37 39 t
82 r 133 a 29 e Syria t W Mediterranean 1 N LM n Iraq 132 I Sea . n West a m Bank
i 131
81 l a Jordan F a c w n d n o a u
130 i l i a t l DS Eg/Jo1 l a Negev r f a b a n
d 129 d u h c o i i
u Israel s h t t S h C a b s 128 l i G u o f s n
a 127 79
m Sinai g T w
a m 77 z i
o
126 e a l d u U b s l
a S a
i o t t e a k
f 5 q i l
o 29
d a Saudi Arabia
o A
126 h c f
4
a f a l v
n
S o a u h
1 0 300 km
125 a
f f G l
W BW 55 FL
C 6 c u C c n
i G
124 b i C o o g j oo c a u l
123 . e T M Red D P 122 S Sea T 121 LM
. u 120 20 T m r i n F ) S S e 119 e r s H m n r A ( o a t 118 BP i s DL d B e e a l m W a 117 i L c
116 10 s l s a k t a e l 115 o i
a oo a c c
v o oo i h 4 a t a 114 o f r C 1 oo c c e C n 113 b o oo FW i i o j V C ooo g
c 112 u a T l . ooo M
111 e S D 0 P 110 T Tu/Co-1 ooo . i
l u 2 a 1 o Wadi g
i 109 C r As Sir s C . u Limestone M T Fm.
Fig. 4 South Gebel Qabaliat (6) Gebel Nazazat (5) Ras el-Gifa (4) s n s . s . o s Clastic s s s t s t o . s s i i s s s e e s
t Clastic o s s t s n e c t s t Clastic n e i n e o n e m t i n e c i
e g e u e n a o cl si fs ms cs o a n i e l c c c n n n i n z o z a r
cl si fs ms cs g s n t n k n r p i o . . a a c s
cl si fs ms cs g e t r o u o i c n s e t e e F l o u o r t i e m N t a o o z F z l . s y . a t i e a z Carbonate z s c p g i a k s R P . . C d c S S p i s k a . c . u m c a p gr a F c m w fl rs a c n m m o e t N F F o m q Carbonate o . . N t F e s o Carbonate a o o . . u s
t oo
s oo S s a e P R
s p gr . s C S
P m w rs y R a o p gr fl o C S m w rs oooo a y
S fl f S m l
b FP S F e f a o
. 35 . l t oo h k o k f a l o oo l b e 8 m l oo s v a a a a F h e 1 W t t o M 96 e oo e h l
53 h . a P l a h 8 F S k e C l 8 a v v C F 1 d
C o S o oo a . m e 1 o oo e & e h oo l r T C d l
l o r C
h 95 r T G F oo i k C T e d e d d o e S C r H C
oo S
. 52
. o u M C d n
S oo u n a r T i C T G G S d T n S a 94 o o o M o I oo oo M oo u
i oo 30 20 S u l u n 50 u ` a
Ca-4 a ) c f 6 r i
m o . CH & oo l r a
CH & RSL 93 d r . t 1 . e i e e b o D m t b T o FW p C n m
f oo
RSL h r 49 ( y t 28 M s n S M s C e a a PGSL I t l e e m
P H e t l p n u t I l a a a
a BP SH e a n
t ~ c n a d C u
o 92 a t i . c ~
o 48 s t . i n a DS Eg/Jo3 b t 10
b SW/P b r v l
o ~ s r 5 u
a 91 a b . P a a a 47 1 t s . r c T l l C B c n a C C
GSBP c e i
S ~
46 . r i w c o G t r T C b e c c o
l ~ H r l e i 25 l S . . l p a s
90 i e p ~ a d p D T e i s m p i h V t ~
BP T U l r
QA F c
T g U g 89 S a e S
45 a t S r d f
T 23 n e
o ~ 0 T l I . 88 t a l
. u Sa/Ca-3 44 t y m . b i T a o
b SARL g r T e L r h M
. S o . s t h M e S t l i e H n P QA T
41 t e H L a e .
t BW 20 - O n a . d i a h t e m Peri- n O r n g m
r . n BD i F o e l r e t F o H
tidal r n a b
a 85 n a r i b
38 r l a d 18 . r l B a l i BGL a a l l t i a u b
a Ccl C u t b - t C n d a y - u i l c a l OBP t i c w s 83 r a o M t i 36 M b o a t t n 16 d l s i l u w e s t e
DS Eg/Jo2 a n a r l s a o b T
BW & CCL N r l l h c l ~ 16 u a 82 i a c 35 ~ S w l s S i a FBP i T l T B o S i T h l
34 S S l S S S u a . BP T d i S T l d h e 80 2 m a e x 32 S 1 i F x g 12 i i C M a
31 s
u t M C . Co/Sa-2 Peri- a . 30 u
Peri- M
n g GDM W b GDM 78 tidal M a 29 tidal i c i l c t CGQW s a
s 28 r a e . a
DS Eg/Jo1 i i l CGQW o b t c C 27 t 77 n a i M T . , f o o o o L
L , c o
S 33 35 37 39 i c t i
GS T t s C Syria s a 76 Mediterranean N l Tu/Co-1 i u 1 Iraq a
l 26 T . l C Sea a 2
c West r S i o g . 1 e
i Bank c r H Jordan i
Wata C s w l
i 2 u . o
C GS s
Fm. L T T M Negev 75 l 3 o
a 31 S r
Fe T Israel o
t 4 t i
L Sinai
z e a
i u u b
l 74
S a o 2
a f 5 q o Saudi Arabia 29 A 1
g
f f i l T o
Wata C u 0 300 km
s f G l S
C 6
. u
G Fm. H M Red Sea
Fig. 5 A Amman Silicified Limestone Fm.
Wadi Umm Ghudran Fm.
Wadi As Sir Limestone Fm.
Shueib Fm.
Hummar Fm.
Fuheis Fm.
Naur Limestone Fm.
B
Dolostone marker bed
C
Amman Silicified Limestone Fm.
Dhiban Chalk Mb.
Tafilah Mb.
Mujib Chalk Mb. Lowest occurrence Calcareous nannofossil zones The present study Highest appearance ) 7 ) 7 2 e 9 Planktonic 1 ) g 1 Planktonic 0 ( 5 a 2 ) foraminifera s t 8 l ) h ( foraminifera t i n s 2 9 g , 8 i n s . zones 1 b 1 n l 9 ( datum events e s s i s e l a t u t 0 s i l e 9 o v a n (Gradstein t s s s i n r s 2 s c f i e e e a n 1 t i s e d s e s r c , S o ( f n n d l i o
et al., 2012) s . s n e a i o v r e i e n o s l f t n e z n r m f o n i t i e e t e v i e o n n t f a t a k n u t o e e f N s G i o a t n o n - m C k t a n ( z d e n m a a a o h n m n e m l a r s N r n g U c a a u r d z u e n r l P o r a u t t a f n e a G P a t o a f o B N P d S d d z N n a C C n a i
n G. arca & a UC14 CC18 CC18 B. parca parca G. elevata p B. parca parca G. elevata G. elevata m a C UC13 G. elevata 83.6Ma D. CC17 asymetrica CC17
UC12 Regular D. C. obscurus n asymetrica a i n o t n
a CC16 S L. cayeuxii D. CC16 D. asymetrica UC11 R. asymetrica CC15 anthophorus L. cayeuxii D. asymetrica 86.3Ma R. CC15 anthophorus n a i c a i CC14 n UC10 CC14 D. concavata o
C D. concavata
M. M. staurophora staurophora D. concavata 89.8Ma M. furcatus D. concavata M. furcatus Turo. UC9 CC13 CC13
Fig. 7 Range of selected planktonic foraminiferal Range of selected nannofossil species Studied sections species s i i s i s i l n m a g e s a r s a r a i n i a t n u g o e u r i a c r s a r f t a e a i s e b i i o i s x l a i n o s a a e t e e a o g a e l s s b n z u a u r t a c l o i e h e n r n a l s f e e d n a u e a u r d a l o s s s a p a f i a e p i u c m n t r h i c s u u i y a n t n f l i a c i s e v n g e i x l a n s t o o y t a c b o i c i i i h b o a i t e l e a a s l e p r p o a a v n e r e i c n e t s u s a s a u e l e h s p l t l c t i b u a v p a s c i r d r i m r . i t i o o s n s l c t l l n e e a . r u n a l f t a i u i v i i d a a a a . e e e o k s r a r s a n f h l a u c o f u r c r o m r l a b c f e a c b a l t n n n a n a i m u l r i l c r s s a a l r p f r u m b c o r t t t b r S n m n e a o r n f a l a a a y i e b e e d a a a i a x . a a o u u i l r i u o a s s e a o a s r r o c c c o t t n z a a a d l a t e u r l b p m n n n n n p r p a k g a a z e e i a p e f a c i p n o o b n n n n t t h a n n d s i s s a h u c l a a a a a s s i g a r i a i i h a i i l a a a x r d d s b l u u u t t j c c c c c a t r b p a u h i a a a a f z n i r r i u u e G a l a l t e h l l l l i r r r b b s l r e a d d u a l a P - o u n n n n n l e e a h n l l l l t t t m s n e s a g h h l l l p e u a a r r t o o g e t t h f h e e e e g g G u u u u u o o o o p i o g u e s n i i a Q N t c a a a r h h h a l a - E M N n r r r r r s n l l a a s r r i n n n n a n n n l c o l l s a n t t t t t k l l r r i l l l l l i i i i o o n h h o i i i a i l i e i i i n r c d l l n e e e e e e i r u o o o o o r r r r r a z g g h i o i c e r g g g n n n d b e t e e d d b t a f f c l c c t e r r i i b b b b b a a a a s b b t k i t t o i r r r u u o f f a e i i a d t a a a s u r a i i e e r c c c c s s a e e e r p r u o o o o o a r e e a a a c r h e e i i i i l l l l l o i o o A C E M Q E M R L R B W R C P T Z E Z B W W K R G G D D D D H H M M M C G G G G G W D C C . a t p a v e m l e a . G
C CC18
Hiatus
a CC17 Hiatus c n i r a t i e n o m t y n s a a S . D CC16
CC15 n e r r a B d a e t r n a u a v s i a a c c CC14 e a i n m n o t o c o C . N D
. M. CC13 o r
u sigali T CC12
Fig. 8 n e Measured section in Egypt and Jordan
o The present study . g . r a F N t h . . s n n t t r P a C ) b C o o f a n a a a i i i i r u f n i t t l r . z o & i e k M S a o d G a a a b e t a i ( N . i - d a y j t . h l a n n b d z a t F r & e i n . u a e o o a n a n C g r G a e W a P n - z z a o t a l M A N s Q t g K l o z S . a a . E o S z t G G R S P a t a .
v CC18 G n CC18 e a l 81 a t i e a n v a Nearly barren e p l e 82 m . a G C Hiatus 83 CC17 83.6
84 a n c i a i r a t n c i e o r t t m .
85 n e
y CC16 CC16 a D s m S a y s . a 86 D 86.3
CC15 a CC15 t a v d 87 a n a c e a t r i n a c u o v s a Barren c i a
CC14 a n
88 c a e l
o CC14 n l m o e C c t n i . o r a D 89 N c i D 90 89.8 CC13 Hiatus . o r Zonal recorded Barren Hiatus
u CC12 91 T Fig. 9 10µm Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
oo Terrestrial . oo environment oo N Proximal clay-rich lagoon
o o oo oo oo o Vegetation o Inner carbonate Calcareous algae ooo . shelf Echinoida Ooids o Benthic foraminifera o . Oncoids Bivalves o Gastropoda Deep oo Planktonic foraminifera Peloids carbonate Arabian Plate Jordan Gulf of Suez, Cretaceous eustasy revisited (Haq, 2014) Gulf of Suez, (Sharland et al., Central-east Egypt (Powell ) l Egypt i
s (El-Azabi and 4 s 2004; Haq and s
t Sinai, e e 1 n e s y ) n Sea level curves and Moh’d, n The present n s t 0 o g & o y e i
r El-Araby, o
e (Farouk, o f 2 a r s Qahtani, 2005) d t e z h n z (Lüning o , a
e study s u l g r o n q
t 2011 and C F F b
a 2007) o z s 250 200 150 100 50m Preservation a P n
t 2015) . . u ( P a S & P et al., 1998) H P S
( 2012) N 1 2 3 SB Ca4
a KCa3 t . a 2 v G CC18 e n DS Eg/Jo3 a A l a t 3 KCa2 i e Q a n 3 a v L C p
e SB Sa/Ca3 l
E Hiatus m e a B . C
G KCa1 CC17 SB4 83.6 MFS SB5 Sa/CaSin a
n KSa3 e c
a SB Sa-7 i i v n r r t . o . t u S3 e CC16 n . m c D DS Eg/Jo2 a Eg Uk-6 m y D S s y KSa2 m s a r 1 a e t
86.3 A SB3 t KSa1 K160 SB Sa-6 SB Co/Sa2 r
AP9 Q CC15 o L h KCo2 E S N
a S2 a t t B 4 DS Eg/Jo1
a Eg Uk-5 a 3 n v v . a i C MFS a a SB2 c CC14 D c c a i CoSin n n n o o KCo1 o S1 SB Tu/Co1
c SB Co-5 c C
. SB4
89.8 D SB1 CC13 KTu5 K150 . o r M. AJLUN 3 Eg Uk-4 u CC12 T sigali
Fig. 15 Mujib (5) s
Clastic n s o s s
South i t m e cl si fs ms cs g t c i
e North a t c a i s r a c t y o Carbonate F S s p gr s
m w fl rs a Gebel Qabaliat (1) Gebel Nazazat (2) Ras el-Gifa (3) Karak (4) ` Wadi El-Ghafar (6) l a d i t b s u s ` t s s c
DL s n n
s Clastic w
s Clastic s a s
Clastic o n s T e o s t s s o l i r e s s e e l i o S s t s e c t
s Clastic i s t
c cl si fs ms cs g a e i t
m cl si fs ms cs g t i t n
Clastic T c n g m n i r a cl si fs ms cs h e a t n e c s c c a i n i o e S a c e r o s o i t a i o cl si fsmscs g a t a a a c c s t i r
cl si fsmscs g i s e a e z t c z m s g r t r i e t a o c d Rock units F s y a o e t i . t F . y
u Carbonate Carbonate s c i a Carbonate a o s t F s c S n i s F t S a s c s s m q N p gr a
c m w fl rs a p gr s . m . p m w fl rs o u e gr y a F m w fl rs
S u e o t F a e s P Carbonate o o o o S s o C t oo s oooo oo Carbonate s l S s s p gr y a m w rs o a b p gr fl o oo o FP m w rs a oo y d
f FP fl t S i f l
FP t l S ~ w b e e o f o o u e l o oo l oo LM s h l h T f o oo
n o
oo a s e oo l s p S
h FW o e . e W h T e ~ S t Sudr o e l oo e S s d P h F l S d . e o o
F u
d o Chalk S o ooo oo oo oo d
o e & oo A
oo T i m l T
o d
r ~ T
i oo e i S T l Fm. T n f d
o e o H S
oo l T oo M L d S S e
o M d S T n oo FW d a
o T T C
i oo i h a T S i s n t T o ~ o o oo
I o
o o T oo oo M oo M oo a o oo
n oo Ca-4 v u u u u
e ` a
8 u u l l m f f
o s
CH & f r
oo l r a e
CH & RSL l l 1 p e e e e e o d ~ FL n i T f a o FW i h RSL oo h C h t t t n s s r s i m c S
I FP
PGSL a l C e e r n t P a l a H p
FLM e f a u T n d
BP l I n c SH e o ~ C d S a t
n oo c
~ i n I i u d a DS Eg/Jo3 T
. i
u ~ m . t n T g r ~ c
SW/P b t S o i ~ o a t t T u u o b
. T l P s s
. r
s FW b r t T t e i a B S a e l
GSBP l FW o o ~ S s l w c oo n e c T G P H T
i ~ l o
~ o n b l G c l S I a i p l s
i ~ a d T i e . s e u h BP t u i ~ T r d g QA l T c g S . . . . m l e a
S OBG t a
r . p S . . . a f F T T n o o ~ I T o
l oo t m t S
u a l i
? h n y
Sa/Ca-3 a . o SARL a
. BLG L T g r H r S a h r T o . . s t r S e m t m i S l
QA n m P d L o H F a BW r e F oo H - d O u o a i h f t
d Peri- c a t O
h BD g r i . l FL n i e e r l a t t tidal l G H l a e n u p i i BISP m a
t BGL .
m CH & CDL d e e a m y n i
l Ccl t 6 t s h a b a a o 1 M l m OBP d T u t i w n a a t C s l U o o d l
DS Eg/Jo2 l b n i l e t T i b C u w a n r
a BW & CCL b T s i S o d h ~ l u a r l S T a S H S s a c w FBP a T c S l T o h i l W l a T S BP S D u a
S d T i h t r S e u t Co/Sa-2 LM n 20 Peri- I n u Peri- GDM )
5 g a GDM a t tidal l i 1 m a tidal a ( w v c C d a CGQW o i t l l e l a c t l l C
DS Eg/Jo1 l a i e - n a b a r a b
o CGQW BW 4 o d u h n t i c c t s s t S 1 i T o . s
, e b L , i 10 C D S l u c C GS T s a a C f c .
u w c Tu/Co-1 i Wadi i t t T o o l r s l
r As Sir S s a e a l
Limestone H e
u Wata Fm. c h V i GS i
Fm. c S T c i l a i T BW FL f
s 0 S l c
o o o o o i
Fe T o 33 35 37 39 41 a oo r g o a t l Syria T t i
Mediterranean N e 1 Iraq S L P
Sea T u LM Jordan T
2 S u ? Israel 3 o H 31 4 BP DL
Sinai
z
e a
u b S a o
f 5 q
o Saudi Arabia 29 A
f f o l oo s
o u 0 320 km
f e G o i 6l oo u o c G oo a
ooo f c
o i Red oo FW T
o g o oo S a
Sea 27 l ooo T e P ouoo FA FT Name Description Depositional environments and remarks Predominantly greyish siltstone and mudstone (shale) Restricted lower intertidal regime, below 1 Glauconitic ferruginous with yellowish glauconitic pellets. the mean storm wave base. (McRae 1972; siltstone with shale (GS) Wanas 2008). Greyish, orange to brownish yellow, calcareous Shallow marine environment close to the glauconitic quartz-wacke dominated by sub-angular to shoreline / beach-face, with quartz grains 2 Calcareous glauconitic sub-rounded, ill-sorted quartz grains (40-60%) with supplied either by rivers or erosion of the quartz arenite (CGQA) many scattered glauconitic pellets, agglutinated or coastal zone (Pettijohn el al. 1987). disseminated in a ferruginous mud; sparse bioclasts.(Fig. 12A). Fine- to coarse-grained, quartz grains (about 80% of the Lower shoreface setting (El-Azabi and El- rock) which are ill-sorted, elongated to spherical, and Araby 2007). 3 Quartz arenite (QA) rarely polycrystalline. A few oxidized glauconite peloids are present (Fig. 12B).
Littoral siliciclastic facies belt Quartz arenite with poorly sorted, medium to coarse Coastal marine setting, subsequently Sandy evaporitic monocrystalline quartz grains, cemented by anhydrite subjected to emergence that resulted in the 4 recrystallized lime- and gypsum comprising interlocking coarse granular and removal of the iron oxides and cementation mudstone (SARL) prismatic crystals. Some iron oxide coating is present by evaporite minerals in the peritidal zone. (Fig. 12C). Dark lime mud, rich in well-defined, clear dolomitic Restricted peritidal environment during rhombs containing some skeletal particles. Dolomite denotes a fall in relative sea-level Ferruginous sandy 5 rhombs account for about 30-40% of the rock. Rare (LaMaskin and Elrick 1997; Warren 2000). dolomicrite (FSDM) elongated molluscan shell fragments are present (Fig. 12D).
belt Mainly very fine dolomite rhombs (70-80%) with Fine crystalline dolomite is interpreted to skeletal particles, as well as abundant glauconitic pellets, be a result of early diagenetic alteration of Ferruginous glauconitic 6 the latter partially coated by finely crystalline calcite. micrite (lime-mud) in a shoaling, peritidal dolomicrite (FGDM) environment (Warren 2000; El-Azabi and Peritidal carbonate facies El-Araby 2007).
e Coarse-grained crystalline carbonate rock dominated by Coarse crystalline dolomite is interpreted to t Coarse dolomitic 7 dolomite crystals. Dolomite occurs as crystalline masses be a result of late diagenetic alteration of ona mudstone (CDM) b of subhedral to euhedral coarse dolomite rhombs (70- micrite in a lower intertidal setting.
100µm). car l a Skeletal grains make up less than 5% of the rock. It is The lack of deep-water microfossils in the deposits tid 8 Siliceous recrystallized mostly composed of micrite and microspar. original lime-mud matrix, and the presence er platform ramp t lime-mudstone (SRL) of biogenic silica indicates an intertidal n I environment. Consists of a well-developed macrocrystalline calcite Deposited in an intertidal environment. Recrystallized sandy groundmass cementing medium- to fine-grained, 9 dolomicrite (RSL) monocrystalline subrounded to subangular grain-
supported quartz (Fig. 12E). Phosphatic glauconitic Phosphatised bioclastics with authigenic glauconite Near-shore depositional environment sandy lime-mudstone pellets and fine- to very fine quartz grains, closely (Glenn and Arthur 1990). (PGSL) packed in a dark, dense lime–mud matrix (Fig. 12F). 10
The allochems are represented mainly by spherical to Radiallly-fibrous ooids and bioclasts with a Ooidal bioclastic elliptical radially fibrous ooids and shelly bioclasts micritic matrix indicate deposition in a 11 wacke/packstone (mostly bivalves) (Fig. 12G). shallow-water, agitated tidal lagoon (Palma (OBP) et al. 2005; Wanas 2008). Well-bedded, massive and nodular chert is recorded in Cherts in the region are interpreted as 12 Chert-bearing limestone the Upper Carbonate Member of the Matulla Formation occurring during early diagenesis of (Ch) and Tafilah Member of Wadi Umm Ghudran Formation, biogenic silica sols (Steinitz, 1981; Fink and usually parallel to the bedding planes (Fig. 12H). Reches 1983; Powell and Moh’d 2012). Consists mainly of serpulid tubes with a sparry Deposited in a high-energy warm-water, calcite cement centre. Low diversity echinoid and intertidal shoal environment ( Flügel 2004). Serpulid bioclastic 13 bivalve fragments are embedded in sparry calcite wacke/packstone; cement. Fine- to very fine quartz sand grains are present (Fig. 12I). shoal Glauconitic peloidal Coarse-grained bioclastic grainstone to packstone Deposited in high-energy, intertidal sand 14 packstone dominated by echinoid spines and bivalve/gastropod shoals. (GPP) shell debris, embedded in a micrite cement (Figs. 13A). High-energy intertidal intertidal High-energy Yellowish grey, massive, calcareous and partly Calcareous claystone resulting from glauconitic with sparse oysters and burrows. Some suspension fall-out suggests a low energy 15 Calcareous clay (Ccl) sparse authigenic sand nodules are interpreted as back- marine environment in a restricted inner filled crustacean burrows (Thalassinoides). The lagoon environment. carbonate cement (about 20%) is patchy. Glauconitic lime-mudstone with vary rare and low- Restricted shallow subtidal environment. 16 Bioclastic glauconitic diversity, smooth-shelled ostracods embedded in micritic lime mudstone (BGL) matrix. Bioclastic wackestone containing poorly sorted, Subtidal environment with open marine 17 Bioclastic wackestone recrystallized bivalve shell fragments (20% ) loosely circulation, slightly below storm wave-base, Shallow subtidal facies belt (BW) packed in a dense and dark grey, fine-grained micritic (Wilson 1975; Flügel 2004). matrix. Fine- to medium-grained bioclastic packstone dominated Open shallow lagoon environment with 18 Bioclastic packstone (BP) by randomly oriented recrystallized, molluscan moderate water energy. fragments (25%;gastropods and bivalves), echinoid plates and spines (20%) (Fig. 13B). Medium-grained, bioclastic peloidal packstone Elliptical voids in the matrix are interpreted Foraminiferal bioclastic dominated by micritized foraminifera and molluscan to be burrows, and together with the 19 packstone bioclasts (10%), with minor intraclasts, within a micrite micritized foraminifera and molluscan (FBP) matrix. Peloids are rounded, irregularly shaped grains fragmentrs, indicate an oxygenated and frequently contain relict structures. shoreface depositional environment. Disarticulated bivalve shells and echinoderms are the Abundant and diverse shelly fauna suggests Sandy bioclastic most abundant bioclasts. Minor foraminifera (mostly deposition in a high-energy, sandy shoal 20 packstone miliolids and rotalids), calcispheres and sponge spicules environment, in a proximal platform setting. (SBP) occur. Oncoids are well-sorted and well-rounded with nuclei of Oncoid formation suggests a periodically mainly carbonate grains, encrusted with asymmetric turbulent environment which caused Oncoidal bioclastic 21 laminae of thin and crinkly laminated algal micrite. overturning in shallow, low-energy packstone (OBP) Ostracodes of ovoid or lensoid shape are heavily environments (Tucker and Wright 1990; micritized (Fig. 13C). Flügel, 2004). Glauconitic sandy Consists mainly of shell debris (echinoid spines, Interpreted as being deposited as high- 22 bioclastic wackestone bivalves and gastropods) (Fig. 13D). energy sand shoals. (GSBP) Microscopically, the rock is composed of low diversity, Deposited in a restricted, quiet water near- 23 Oyster glauconitic large oyster shells (recrystallized to fibrous calcite) shore setting with low sedimentation rates. floatstone (OGF) floating in a dense lime mud matrix with oxidized glauconite peloids. (Fig. 13E). Bio – intraclastic sandy Consists of peloids (30-40%), intraclasts (20-30%) and Shallow subtidal setting, with periodic,high- 24 packstone fossil fragments, especially echinoids, (10-15%), energy conditions (LaMaskin and Elrick (BISP) embedded in sparry calcite cement (Figs. 13F & G). 1997; Bachmann and Hirsch 2006). Composed of micrite with sparse foraminiferal tests; Shallow inner neritic environment, in warm Foraminiferal lime- microspar calcite patches are the result of aggrading water, low-energy conditions. 25 mudstone (FLM) neomorphism. Some yellowish glauconitic pellets are
also present. Foraminiferal wacke/packstone dominated by variable Deposited in a deep-water marine 26 Foraminiferal Pelagic Facies Pelagic planktonic foraminiferal bioclasts (80% of allochems) environment , varying from deep-inner to wacke/packstone (FP) embedded in a lime-mud matrix (Figs. 13H & I). middle-neritic palaeobathymetry. Table 3: Facies types recognized in the present study.